A man shares information about a criminal case over the phone with a neighborhood police officer. He also tells the district agent during this conversation that no one should know that the information came from him. The man later finds out that his information is included in an official report. This official report is part of a criminal file. The man also finds out that his personal information is in the criminal file. The moment this becomes public, he and his loved ones are threatened.
The man complains that the police and prosecutor's office (prosecutor) included his personal information in the criminal record as a witness. He also complains that the representation of his information in the police report was inaccurate. Finally, the man complains that the police did not do enough to protect him and his loved ones.
The National Ombudsman investigated the man's complaints. To this end, the ombudsman's staff spoke with several police officers and the case officer involved, among others.
There are several ways to share information with the police. When someone shares information with the Criminal Intelligence Team or through Report Crime Anonymous, their identity can be protected. The moment someone shares information with a neighborhood police officer, that cannot be guaranteed.
The National Ombudsman finds that the police and the prosecutor in this case did not give sufficient consideration to whether the man's personal data should be included in the criminal file. There was poor communication between the neighborhood team on one side and the criminal investigation and prosecution on the other. As a result, detectives and prosecutors did not know that the neighborhood officer had struggled with what to do with the information obtained. Nor did they know that the district agent had made efforts to protect the man. In addition, they did not know what agreement had been made about this.
The National Ombudsman further finds that there is no evidence that the contents of the official report are inaccurate.
Finally, the Ombudsman finds that the police took security measures too late to protect the man. The man should have been protected from the moment his personal information was included in the criminal file. That did not happen. The ombudsman does not find that the security measures were inadequate when they were.
Download here the Ombudsman's report
