The exchange of information to prevent violent extremism should not be hampered by audit issues. If there is a requirement for material sharing at a limited level, the need for verification should not be an obstacle. Practitioners should consider how to exchange the information that needs to be exchanged so that partners can provide the necessary response. The verification of an individual`s suitability should be decided on a case-by-case basis, based on requirements and needs. The key principle of the case law is that familiar information should not be used or disclosed, unless the Konfider understood it originally or with the subsequent authorisation of it. The case law has established that exceptions may exist “in the public interest”; Confidentiality can also be repealed or removed by legislation. Disclosure of information in accordance with the legal obligation does not require an ISA. If in doubt, contact the point of contact for the exchange of information. 21. The “Prevent” programme must not involve covert activities against individuals or communities. However, some authorities may have to disclose personal data, for example to ensure that a person at risk of radicalization receives adequate support (for example.
B as part of the channel program). The exchange of information must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and subject to legislation. In order to ensure the full protection of the rights of individuals, it is important that agreements be reached at the local level on the exchange of information. When reviewing the exchange of personal data, the designated authority should consider the following: the national ISA is commissioned by an NPCC official and the agreements relate to their national coordination committee or portfolio area. Once the ISA has been approved, the armed forces should make them public as required. In the case of national agreements, it should be included in the national register and published on the NPCC Data Protection Group Knowledge Hub. (Note: To access this link, you must be a member of the group and be connected to the Knowledge Hub). 41. With the help of coordinators and others, if necessary, any local authority assessing a risk through the multi-agency group should develop a “Prevention” action plan. This will enable the local authority to meet its obligations and address all identified risks. The common law does not give the police unconditional authority to engage in activities that are otherwise not provided for by law. It must not be used in a manner contrary to the law or in conflict with it.
In other respects, Parliament is the supreme judicial authority of the United Kingdom and therefore the Tribunal cannot repeal its legislation. Any use of common law powers in the exchange of information must include the HRA, the RGPD and the Dpa. 30. Local authorities subject to the obligation are listed in Schedule 6 of the Act. They are: the national information exchange portfolio aims to promote, support and make possible the legitimate exchange of information in support of a police objective. It reports directly to the IMORCC. Organizations exchange information in different ways. The definitions of the different types of agreements that allow for effective exchange of information are defined below. 33. Local authorities should create or use an existing multi-agency group to agree on risk and coordination activities.
Many local authorities use community security partnerships, but other multi-agency forums may be appropriate. 13. This guide identifies best practices for each of the most important sectors and describes how they can meet their obligations. It contains additional sources of advice and provides information on how compliance is monitored. The sectoral guidelines for training and higher education institutions subject to the prevention obligation have been published separately and should be read at the same time as these guidelines.