He is now seeking feedback from officers to gauge the impact of the revisions which came as a result of the Police Federation #SimplifyDG6 campaign launched in August.

He said: “I’m confident that the revised guidance, applied correctly, will reduce the redaction burden on police officers while also complying with the legal framework.

“But I would now urge members to contact me or the Police Federation with their experiences of how the revised guidance is affecting their workload.  Is it making a difference? Is it easing the burden and making life a bit easier? We would like to hear from any officer affected by the new guidelines.

“We’ll carefully watch and consult with members to see how much mitigation these joint principles bring to the huge task that redaction currently is for our members.

“We would welcome their views on the revisions and indeed any other suggestions they might have for further improving the current system.

“It’s still our position that there’s an urgent need for amending the Data Protection Act and we’re working with partner agencies in this direction. We hope to formally engage with the Attorney General’s office in early 2023 to see how these concerns can be addressed.”

The successful #SimplifyDG6 campaign followed a review by the Attorney General’s office which recognised that some of the shortcomings led to significant pressure on police officers regarding the submission of case files to the CPS for charging decisions.

However, the review failed to make any recommendation to immediately mitigate the impact on officers.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has since worked with the Federation through the PFNDF and has now produced the revised Joint Principles for Redaction.

They have been developed by the CPS and the NPCC Disclosure Portfolio setting out their joint position on how police officers and prosecutors should approach data protection responsibilities.

The Federation said that the revised guidance should further help officers comply with the Data Protection Act as the redaction of personal information is necessary when sharing information with CPS, including the pre-charge stage.

The revised principles are supported by legal advice from a King’s Counsel (KC) specialising in information law to ensure they’re legally robust and have been endorsed by the co-chairs of the Joint Operational Improvement Board (JOIB).

The main changes are:

• New Supporting Guidance to aid redaction decision-making, including how and when non-redaction can be justified on the grounds of disproportionality. To withstand any legal challenges, it’s important such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, with the decision documented and approved at inspector rank or above.

• Updated FAQs following feedback on common disputes – changing approaches to data minimisation in favour of pragmatism, including when to consider the redaction of occupations, dates of births, vehicle registration numbers, suspects not charged and names of potential witnesses from witness statements. Given the volume of data breaches documented for these categories, the Federation expects to see a significant reduction in the volume of redaction required following these changes.