Strengthen information-sharing practices
By December 2024, the College of Policing, in collaboration with force vetting and recruitment units, should ensure that information-sharing practices, including data retention policies, are strengthened in order to prevent those who commit sexually motivated crimes against women and those otherwise unsuitable for policing from remaining in, or moving across, the policing profession. In particular, there should be a focus on the following information: a. Previous failures to achieve vetting should be recorded by all forces and flagged to recruiting forces. This should also trigger a re-vet with the current or recruiting force. b. A shared agreement should be made about the quality, relevant and necessary content, and sources of information that will be provided in a reference for a future force, also known as a 'shared referencing protocol', with directed questions that must be answered (for example, regarding any past disciplinary or honesty/integrity issues). Information to be shared as part of the protocol should be covered within the relevant forces' fair processing notices. The protocol should apply to all transfers and applications to police forces from individuals in the uniformed services, including: the Ministry of Defence (including the Army, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, as well as their respective reserve forces); fire and rescue services; HM Prison and Probation Service; other police forces; and relevant government agencies, such as Border Force or Immigration Enforcement. This is to improve forces' access to – and ability to use – the totality of information they hold about officers in order to prevent, detect and deal with those likely to commit offences. c. As per Recommendation 8(b), there should be expanded access to and use of the Police National Database, including as a tool for revealing relevant uninvestigated adverse information about officers. d. Any adverse information or intelligence (developed or otherwise) should be passed by the current Professional Standards Directorate to the receiving Professional Standards Directorate for any officers transferring. No decisions on their appointment should be made until that intelligence has been reviewed, recorded and closed and the vetting units have had time to consider it. If the recruiting force identifies adverse information as a result of the vetting process, this should be shared with the current force for consideration and potential action.
How was this assessed?
Response
Accepted
Response
AcceptedHome Secretary James Cleverly said: "The act of pure evil committed against Sarah shocked the nation to its core. My heart goes out to Sarah's family and to all the brave victims who came forward to help inform this report and drive change. The man who committed these crimes is not a reflection on the majority of dedicated police officers working day in, day out to help people. But Sarah was failed in more ways than one by the people who were meant to keep her safe, and it laid bare wider issues in policing and society that need to be urgently fixed. In the 3 years since, a root and stem clean-up of the policing workforce has been underway and we have made huge strides – as well as making tackling violence against women and girls a national policing priority to be treated on par with terrorism. But we will continue to do everything in our power to protect women and girls. I am grateful to Lady Elish for her meticulous investigation. Her insights will be invaluable as we move forward in supporting our police to build forces of the highest standards of integrity and regain the trust of the British public."
The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) and College of Policing has at the same time committed to addressing the remaining recommendations in Lady Angiolini's report concerning police culture and increasing the robustness of police vetting. The government will follow up with further detail on how the recommendations will be delivered in partnership with the College of Policing and NPCC in due course.
Progress Timeline
Inquiry assessment: 3 of 4 sub-recommendations dependent on IT systems or external organisations, causing 6 months to 2 years delay.
Published Evidence
Published assessments of implementation progress from inspectorates, select committees, official progress reports, and other sources. Check the source type badge to see whether each assessment is independent or government self-reported.
3 of 4 sub-recommendations dependent on IT systems or external organisations, causing 6 months to 2 years delay.
View detailed findings
Described as "multifaceted" leading to missed deadline. Cloud-based system for sharing vetting failures being rolled out but not all forces on latest version. Data-sharing agreements with HMPPS hoped for September 2025. Full completion relies on Continuous Integrity Screening tool due 2026.