Member

I will not set out the long explanations but basically, in relation to the point about Article 8, the discussion and considerations have demonstrated clearly that it is the data protection legislation, not Article 8 of the ECHR, which requires the burdensome redaction exercise. Secondly, in relation to the “further down the line” rejection the short answer is that, under the proposal in the amendment, if a decision is made by the CPS not to charge then, as I said, the unredacted file can simply be deleted or placed in secure storage. It would not go any further down the line; it would do so only if a decision was made to charge, in which case the file could be redacted in the usual way.