Do you think that the following types of "informants" have the right to know the outcome of any investigation:
1. Whistleblowers (in most whistleblowing policies it states that the outcome of the investigation will be made known to the whistle blower (within legal restraints).
2. Those who complain via the LA's complaints procedure (will obviously be informed of the outcome of their complaint) but should they be informed of any subsequent action (disciplinary for example).
3. Those who inform re fraud or corruption which is subsequently investigated (in our fraud and corruption policy it states that unless the informant is anonymous we will inform them of outcome of investigation. This could include, for example a member of the public informing on another person re suspected benefit fraud.
The outcome could be, for example, disciplinary action, legal action etc.
I naturally feel more inclined to justify any disclosure to 1 & 2 above due to the nexus between the informant and the outcome of the investigation. However, know that there is no such distinction in the DPA 1998.
I don't think any exemptions would apply and therefore look to compliance with the principles of the DPA 1998. In respect of priniciple 1 the most relevant para would seem to be 5 (d) or 6(1). However, if we were to inform about disciplinary action etc would this not be prejudicial to data subject. In which case should we just be informing informants that the matter has been investigated and appropriate action taken ?
| BACK | RETURN TO INFORMATIONLAW.ORG.UK |