Legal Action Against the Police: Defamation, Data and privacy breaches

If you are considering legal action against the police for defamation, breach of privacy or data protection breaches, it is important to understand your rights. Police forces can be held accountable where false allegations or unlawful disclosure of personal data cause serious reputational harm.

Breach of privacy and defamation by the police no win no fee

Defamation by the police: when allegations become assertions

Repetition and adoption of allegations

Publicising arrests and the presumption of innocence

High profile investigations and privacy concerns

Circulation of images and ongoing online harm

Data protection duties of police forces

Taking action and protecting your rights

Defamation and breach of privacy action against the police

Breach of privacy and defamation by the police no win no fee

Many readers might be surprised to learn how often the police commit defamation, data protection breaches and privacy violations against accused persons, suspects and even convicted individuals.

We regularly see cases where officers present allegations as fact, release names or private details too quickly, or allow damaging information to circulate long after an investigation has ended. In some situations, images remain online even when charges are dropped or a case collapses. In others, internal communications spread beyond their intended audience and cause lasting reputational harm.

Those affected are often already in distress. They may have been arrested, investigated or publicly associated with serious allegations. Their family life, career and mental wellbeing may already be under strain. When police communication or disclosure adds to that pressure, the damage can become far greater than the original allegation.

If you believe the police have breached your reputation, misused your personal data or interfered with your privacy, read this article to guide you on what to do should you have a defamation claim against the police. You may be able to take steps to restore your position and seek compensation.

Defamation by the police: when allegations become assertions

We start with defamation by the police. This arises where officers publish or communicate false allegations that seem like an online reputation attack. The fact that a statement comes from a serving officer does not shield it from scrutiny.

If police present unproven allegations as established fact, or communicate in a way that conveys guilt, they can be legally liable for defamation. By way of example, in Suresh v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, we acted for Mr Suresh, who was the victim of police defamation. The police investigated allegations against him which were completely unfounded. Despite the absence of evidence and without any court findings against him, a senior officer issued a written communication accusing Mr Suresh of serious financial fraud and abuse of his position within a charitable organisation.

The wording went far beyond neutral reporting of allegations and instead conveyed that he had in fact committed the misconduct, presenting suspicion as established truth. The recipients treated the communication as authoritative because it came from a detective. It circulated within professional and community networks.

The reputational damage was immediate. Our client faced scrutiny from regulatory bodies and suspicion from colleagues and members of his community. The case concluded with damages, legal costs and a formal apology. This case illustrates an important principle. The police must take great care with language. If an officer states or implies that a person committed wrongdoing when that remains unproven, the law may treat that as defamatory.

Courts assess the overall meaning of the words used. They consider how an ordinary reader or listener would understand the communication. Even if an officer believes they are merely summarising allegations, the law focuses on the impression created. If that impression suggests guilt as a matter of fact, liability may follow.

By way of further example, in TJM v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, we acted for a serving marine officer who was falsely accused of harassment by his former partner. At the very outset of the investigation, before any findings had been made and before any evidence had been tested, the investigating officer wrote directly to our client’s superiors in the Army. In that correspondence, she informed them of the allegations and expressed her view that our client might not be suitable to remain in the Army due to what she described as his bad character.

This communication took place at a stage when nothing had been proven. The allegations were contested and remained under investigation. Yet the letter conveyed a clear and damaging impression that our client had in fact behaved improperly. For a serving officer, such a communication carried obvious and serious consequences. His career, reputation and standing within the military were placed at risk before any determination of the facts.

We issued proceedings on his behalf. The claim resulted in a substantial award of compensation and a formal apology from the police. TJM v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police stands as a further example of how premature and unjustified communications by officers can cross the line into defamation and cause profound harm to individuals who are already under immense personal and professional pressure.

Repetition and adoption of allegations

In defamation law, repeating an allegation does not remove responsibility.  This is illustrated in the case of Melanie Brown and Stephen Belafonte. This issue arose in the article published by The Sun in relation to Mel B of the Spice Girls, where The Sun claimed that its own undisclosed sources had informed the paper that our client, Mr Belafonte, was being investigated by the police for harassment. That suggestion was untrue.

Even if such an investigation had been underway, it would still have been wrong to report it in a manner that implied wrongdoing at such an early stage, when no findings had been made and our client had not been convicted of anything.

Repeating or amplifying unproven allegations, particularly during the early stages of an investigation, can cause serious reputational harm. The law can treat such republication as if the publisher made the allegation themselves.

We saw this principle clearly in the High Court case we handled for Stephen Belafonte against News Group Newspapers. Although that claim concerned a national newspaper rather than the police, the legal principles apply equally to public authorities. The court examined how the article presented allegations. It did not focus only on individual sentences. It looked at the tone, the context and the overall impression.

The judge found that the publication conveyed that Mr Belafonte was guilty of serious misconduct. The newspaper argued that it had merely reported what others had said. The court rejected that argument. Repeating allegations and presenting them in a way that adopts or endorses them can still amount to defamation.

If the police communicate allegations made by complainants and do so in a manner that suggests they accept those allegations as true, the same reasoning can apply.

Publicising arrests and the presumption of innocence

An arrest allows the police to investigate. It does not amount to a finding of guilt. Yet once the police confirm an arrest to the press, the reputational consequences can be severe. Online news spreads rapidly. Social media commentary follows within minutes. Search engines preserve reports indefinitely. Even if the investigation later ends with no conviction at trial, or even no charge, the individual’s name may remain linked to the original allegation.

The police must balance transparency with fairness. In some cases, they may need to confirm an arrest to prevent speculation or to reassure the public. However, they must avoid language that implies guilt. They must not present suspicion as established fact. If a statement goes further than necessary and conveys that the individual committed the offence, that may give rise to a defamation claim.

 Each case turns on its facts, including the wording used and the surrounding context. Leaks create additional risk. If information about an impending arrest reaches the media from within a police force, and that disclosure causes reputational damage before any formal process has taken place, serious questions arise about lawfulness and data protection compliance.

High profile investigations and privacy concerns

The case of Lucy Letby, although not one of our cases, raises serious questions about the use of police body worn camera footage. It was widely reported that police released head camera footage of her arrest.

This took place after her conviction and while matters were said to be pending before the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The case remains the subject of public controversy and, in many people’s minds, the final word has not yet been spoken.

The arrest itself may have been filmed for evidential purposes. Recording an arrest can be justified where the footage is required for investigation and for presentation before a court. However, a very different issue arises once that material is later released beyond the criminal process.

Reports suggested that footage showing Ms Letby in her home, dressed in nightwear at the time of arrest, was provided for use in a commercial documentary. 

At that stage, the purpose of collecting the data had already been fulfilled. The recording had been made for a specific and limited reason, namely evidential use within the criminal justice system. Using the same material for a media production represents a separate purpose entirely.

Even where a person has been convicted, they retain rights to privacy and data protection. The fact of conviction does not remove those rights, nor does it automatically justify wide publication of intimate images from inside a private home.

If police disclose such material for purposes that go beyond investigation and prosecution, there is a strong argument that they have exceeded the scope of lawful data processing and interfered with both the individual’s privacy and that of family members present at the time of arrest.

While the full legal position in that matter may still be developing, the case illustrates an important principle. Material gathered for one defined law enforcement purpose cannot simply be repurposed for public broadcast without careful legal justification. Where that boundary is crossed, claims for breach of privacy and unlawful processing of personal data may arise.

Circulation of images and ongoing online harm

Police forces sometimes publish photographs during investigations in order to identify suspects or trace individuals. Such publication may be justified at the time.

Difficulties arise where the position later changes. Charges may be dropped. A suspect may be acquitted. The investigation may conclude with no further action. Yet the image remains on a police website or continues to circulate online through archived pages and social media.

At that stage, the continued publication may become unlawful. Data protection law requires personal data to be accurate and kept up to date. What happens when outdated news reports keep damaging your reputation after charges are dropped? If the police no longer suspect the individual of wrongdoing, continuing to display their image in connection with alleged criminal conduct may breach those obligations. The individual may also argue that the continued publication amounts to misuse of private information. 

Courts assess whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and then balance that against any claimed public interest. Once a case concludes without conviction, the public interest in maintaining online identification may reduce significantly. In appropriate cases, individuals can seek removal of content, correction of records and compensation for the distress and reputational harm caused.

Data protection duties of police forces

Police forces process vast quantities of personal data. They must comply with strict statutory obligations when collecting, storing, sharing and retaining that data. 

Taking action and protecting your rights

Claims against the police require careful legal analysis. Public authorities benefit from certain statutory defences and protections. Not every grievance will justify litigation. However, where the police cross the line into defamation, misuse of private information or unlawful data processing, the courts can and do intervene.

Early legal advice plays a crucial role. Defamation claims have strict limitation periods. Delay can weaken your position. Swift action can reduce further publication, secure correction and prevent the situation from escalating.

In many cases, a well drafted letter before action can achieve removal of material, clarification of the record or compensation without the need for a full trial. In more serious matters, High Court proceedings may become necessary to vindicate reputation and restore personal standing.

Defamation and breach of privacy action against the police

If you are facing this situation, you may feel anxious, frustrated or unsure where to turn. Challenging the police can seem daunting. Many people assume there is little they can do.

In reality, there are clear legal routes available. We have achieved a 100 percent success rate in the police cases we have taken forward. After an initial consultation and a careful review of the facts, we are in most suitable cases able to act on a no win no fee basis.

Our aim is simple. We help you restore your reputation, protect your privacy and seek fair compensation where harm has been caused.

If you believe the police have treated you unfairly, misused your data or damaged your good name, speak to us. Early advice often makes a real difference.