Super-complaint highlights privacy concerns for victims

The Centre for Military Justice (CMJ) recently submitted a super-complaint aimed at addressing what it sees as a significant infringement on the privacy of victims in the military justice system. This complaint focuses specifically on the access that Service Police have to victims' work emails and internet browser history, highlighting a serious risk to the privacy rights of service personnel (SP) who report crimes, particularly sexual offences.

Authorized by the Service Police (Complaints etc) Regulations 2023, the CMJ has brought this issue to the attention of His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMCIC) after a thorough assessment determined it warranted investigation. In their submission, the CMJ noted that victims could unknowingly have their work emails accessed without consent during an investigation, raising questions about the legality and ethics of such practices.

Describing their concerns, the CMJ stated that “the Service Police’s practice of accessing a complainant’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) work email account and internet browser history for the purposes of their police investigation and without the victim’s knowledge or consent” epitomizes a systemic risk to the rights of victims of serious crimes. The complaint is particularly pertinent in cases of sexual violence, where the intrusion of privacy can have long-lasting effects on the victim's wellbeing and willingness to come forward.

The issue was brought to light through the experience of a servicewoman known as PP, who discovered that her MoD email had been included in evidence for a rape investigation without her consent. Shocked by this violation, she expressed deep concern over the lack of safeguards, noting that “as the victim and not the suspect in the proceedings, she was shocked and concerned about this intrusion of privacy.”

The CMJ highlights that while the MoD cites the Joint Services Publication (JSP) 740 as justification for their actions, this policy does not align with the legal protections typically afforded to victims in civilian jurisdictions. Citing various legal precedents and reports, the CMJ argues that the Service Police must adhere to the same strict regulations that govern civilian police forces. They insist that “the protections that exist elsewhere… [are] designed to protect victims of crime from intrusive, disproportionate searches.”

The implications of these findings are significant. If the MoD's current practice continues unchecked, it risks undermining public confidence in the military justice system and potentially discouraging victims from reporting crimes. The CMJ warns that “intrusive searches of a victim's personal digital information risk negatively impacting public confidence in both the criminal justice system and the service justice system.”

As the investigation unfolds, the CMJ calls for urgent reforms to ensure that victims of crime within the military justice framework receive the same protections as their civilian counterparts. The organization has made it clear that transparency regarding these practices must be improved and that victims should be fully informed of their rights, particularly regarding how their personal data may be accessed during investigations.

In conclusion, the super-complaint by the Centre for Military Justice raises critical ethical and legal questions about the current practices of the Service Police regarding victim data access, thus prompting a call for more robust protections within the military justice system.