The Government is conducting an ongoing review of the Computer Misuse Act.

As part of the review, we are reviewing how we can better support legitimate cybersecurity researchers so they can operate within a clear and supportive legal framework, while maintaining robust safeguards.

The auditing of police systems is a matter for local forces, who use bespoke IT systems to conduct lawful business monitoring. Forces’ use of such systems is assessed as part of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ (HMICFRS) integrity inspection programme. The provision of training is also a matter for local forces, dependent on the specific systems in use

Police officers must adhere to the statutory Standards of Professional Behaviour, which are clear that they must only access or disclose information in the proper course of their policing duties. This is further supported by guidance within the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics, published in 2024, on the accessing of data without authorisation. Allegations of system misuse are investigated by force Professional Standards Departments (PSDs), however the most serious and sensitive allegations of police misconduct are referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

The number of finalised conduct matter, recordable conduct matter and public complaint allegations against police officers and staff is published on an annual basis within the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics. The latest statistics, covering the year ending 31 March 2024 includes the number of allegations broken down by the allegation type, including ‘use of force systems’, where the threshold for recording a conduct matter, recordable conduct matter or complaint has been met. This can be found in the accompanying ‘misconduct allegations by type’ data table: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-misconduct-open-data-tables. This includes information on whether the allegation was referred to disciplinary proceedings, however does not however identify the specific subsequent disciplinary outcome of these proceedings or the characteristics of the officer or staff member in each individual allegation.

The Home Office does not hold information on cybercrimes committed by police officers or staff and published Ministry of Justice data on criminal convictions is not broken down by the individual’s occupation. However, the College of Policing’s Barred List statistics do identify the reasons for dismissal. The total number of reasons is higher than the number of actual dismissals because individuals may be dismissed for multiple reasons. In 2023/24, there were 66 instances of unlawful access or disclosure of information which featured as part of a police officer’s dismissal, 5 in respect of special constables and 37 in respect of police staff. Data for previous years is available here: https://www.college.police.uk/article/barred-list

The Government has committed to raising standards in policing and, last year, the Home Secretary announced a series of reforms to strengthen the police misconduct system, including a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct and specific offences automatically amounting to gross misconduct

The Government is also committed to disrupting and pursuing those responsible for Computer Misuse Act offences. We will continue to ensure we keep the public safe and use all of the levers available to us to achieve this. This includes using our capabilities to pursue those responsible for crime, as well as protecting people and businesses at risk of being victims of crime

The auditing of police systems is a matter for local forces, who use bespoke IT systems to conduct lawful business monitoring. Forces’ use of such systems is assessed as part of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ (HMICFRS) integrity inspection programme. The provision of training is also a matter for local forces, dependent on the specific systems in use

Police officers must adhere to the statutory Standards of Professional Behaviour, which are clear that they must only access or disclose information in the proper course of their policing duties. This is further supported by guidance within the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics, published in 2024, on the accessing of data without authorisation. Allegations of system misuse are investigated by force Professional Standards Departments (PSDs), however the most serious and sensitive allegations of police misconduct are referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

The number of finalised conduct matter, recordable conduct matter and public complaint allegations against police officers and staff is published on an annual basis within the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics. The latest statistics, covering the year ending 31 March 2024 includes the number of allegations broken down by the allegation type, including ‘use of force systems’, where the threshold for recording a conduct matter, recordable conduct matter or complaint has been met. This can be found in the accompanying ‘misconduct allegations by type’ data table: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-misconduct-open-data-tables. This includes information on whether the allegation was referred to disciplinary proceedings, however does not however identify the specific subsequent disciplinary outcome of these proceedings or the characteristics of the officer or staff member in each individual allegation.

The Home Office does not hold information on cybercrimes committed by police officers or staff and published Ministry of Justice data on criminal convictions is not broken down by the individual’s occupation. However, the College of Policing’s Barred List statistics do identify the reasons for dismissal. The total number of reasons is higher than the number of actual dismissals because individuals may be dismissed for multiple reasons. In 2023/24, there were 66 instances of unlawful access or disclosure of information which featured as part of a police officer’s dismissal, 5 in respect of special constables and 37 in respect of police staff. Data for previous years is available here: https://www.college.police.uk/article/barred-list

The Government has committed to raising standards in policing and, last year, the Home Secretary announced a series of reforms to strengthen the police misconduct system, including a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct and specific offences automatically amounting to gross misconduct

The Government is also committed to disrupting and pursuing those responsible for Computer Misuse Act offences. We will continue to ensure we keep the public safe and use all of the levers available to us to achieve this. This includes using our capabilities to pursue those responsible for crime, as well as protecting people and businesses at risk of being victims of crime

The auditing of police systems is a matter for local forces, who use bespoke IT systems to conduct lawful business monitoring. Forces’ use of such systems is assessed as part of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ (HMICFRS) integrity inspection programme. The provision of training is also a matter for local forces, dependent on the specific systems in use

Police officers must adhere to the statutory Standards of Professional Behaviour, which are clear that they must only access or disclose information in the proper course of their policing duties. This is further supported by guidance within the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics, published in 2024, on the accessing of data without authorisation. Allegations of system misuse are investigated by force Professional Standards Departments (PSDs), however the most serious and sensitive allegations of police misconduct are referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

The number of finalised conduct matter, recordable conduct matter and public complaint allegations against police officers and staff is published on an annual basis within the ‘Police misconduct, England and Wales’ statistical bulletin, which can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-misconduct-statistics. The latest statistics, covering the year ending 31 March 2024 includes the number of allegations broken down by the allegation type, including ‘use of force systems’, where the threshold for recording a conduct matter, recordable conduct matter or complaint has been met. This can be found in the accompanying ‘misconduct allegations by type’ data table: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-misconduct-open-data-tables. This includes information on whether the allegation was referred to disciplinary proceedings, however does not however identify the specific subsequent disciplinary outcome of these proceedings or the characteristics of the officer or staff member in each individual allegation.

The Home Office does not hold information on cybercrimes committed by police officers or staff and published Ministry of Justice data on criminal convictions is not broken down by the individual’s occupation. However, the College of Policing’s Barred List statistics do identify the reasons for dismissal. The total number of reasons is higher than the number of actual dismissals because individuals may be dismissed for multiple reasons. In 2023/24, there were 66 instances of unlawful access or disclosure of information which featured as part of a police officer’s dismissal, 5 in respect of special constables and 37 in respect of police staff. Data for previous years is available here: https://www.college.police.uk/article/barred-list

The Government has committed to raising standards in policing and, last year, the Home Secretary announced a series of reforms to strengthen the police misconduct system, including a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct and specific offences automatically amounting to gross misconduct

The Government is also committed to disrupting and pursuing those responsible for Computer Misuse Act offences. We will continue to ensure we keep the public safe and use all of the levers available to us to achieve this. This includes using our capabilities to pursue those responsible for crime, as well as protecting people and businesses at risk of being victims of crime

The vast majority of prison staff are hardworking and dedicated. A minority of staff engage in corrupt activity.

HM Prison & Probation Service has a zero-tolerance policy to drugs conveyed into prisons and take appropriate action to a small number of prison staff who break the rules. Our £100m Security Investment Programme, aimed at reducing crime in prisons, including reducing the conveyance of illicit items such as drugs and mobile phones, is ongoing. This includes increased resource to pursue corruption, as well as established a new ‘Prevent’ function, aimed at building staff resilience against corruption.

Below is a table showing the breakdown of staff investigated from July 23 to Dec 2023 relating to the conveyance of drugs.

Table 1

Below is a table showing the breakdown of staff arrested from 2019 to Dec 2023 to date relating to the conveyance of drugs.

Table 2

Below is a table showing the breakdown of staff charged from 2019 to Dec 2023 to date relating to the conveyance of drugs.

Table 3

Source: Linkspace Case Management System.

Notes:

Linkspace is the Counter Corruption Unit’s (CCU) Case Management System used to record and track cases linked to corruption.

Data provided by the Counter Corruption (CCU) have the following Caveats applied below;

1) The new Counter Corruption Unit came into being in April 2019, with a new structure and a change to ways of working. During the initial transition period, and prior to the introduction of the new Case Management System, it is possible that not all arrests were being captured.

2) Prior to April 2019, corruption in HMPPS was managed by the Corruption Prevention Unit

(CPU). The CPU was a largely centralised unit focused on sanitising and disseminating all

corruption related intelligence to the Police, with an individual Regional Corruption

Prevention Manager (RCPM) in each geographical region offering advice and support to

prisons in managing corruption, Hence data prior to April 2019 is not available.

3) Data includes Non-Directly Employed Staff (public or private) as they provide a service on behalf of HMPPS.

4) Officers ‘charged*’ is not an assured metric, the data below is likely very underrepresented given it is substantially lower than our CJS outcomes i.e., CJS sentences, court fines, conditional discharges etc over this period.

5) The Investigations data is all operations opened on linkspace that relate to conveyance of drugs, for officers and non-officers. Some investigations are based off limited intelligence and many are unproven.