Police chiefs have told the family and friends of Jack O’Sullivan that they can’t legally share phone data with them which shows roughly where the missing student went on the night he disappeared, because it will breach data protection laws.
Frustrated family said they are now having to commission their own radio frequency (RF) survey to try to find out exactly where Jack’s phone went that night, and where it was when it last sent a signal to the network – but because it’s been nearly eight months, it will not be as accurate.
Earlier this month, the family and friends of the missing student, who have raised tens of thousands of pounds from well-wishers to help with their search, persuaded the 23-year-old’s phone company EE to share all the phone data with them that they had earlier shared with the police.
But that information needs processing and scraping and to track the location of the phone requires an RF survey, which involves measuring transmissions from the phone and matching them against call data to help determine where the phone was at any given time.
That RF survey was completed by Avon and Somerset police, and they said Jack’s phone never left the Cumberland Basin area of the city, where Jack was captured on CCTV several times walking around after 3am on the night he disappeared.
Now, the ‘Find Jack’ campaign said they asked the police for their RF survey results, but were refused – sparking controversy and fury among campaigners on social media.
“We know Avon & Somerset did an RF survey and so Jack’s family asked for it to help the analysis. They were refused,” said Jayne Caple, from the Find Jack campaign. “Because they don’t want to have the battle, they have commissioned the forensics company to perform one which takes valuable time.
“It’s also worth adding that it is far better to have the police version as it is likely to be more accurate than one performed now,” she added.
But a spokesperson for Avon and Somerset police said they did conduct the surveys now being repeated by the tech experts commissioned by the family, but it didn’t shed any new light on what might have happened to Jack.
And the police said they can’t share the in-depth analysis because they are not allowed to. “Officers have conducted an in-depth analysis of Jack’s phone use and data movements after his last confirmed sighting, this has included receiving information from Jack’s phone provider. Unfortunately, this information has not taken us any further in our bid to locate Jack,” said a spokesperson for Avon and Somerset police.
“In August, we received a request from the Jack’s family requesting a copy of the data. Unfortunately, due to the strict handling and retention requirements laid out in Home Office Communications Data Code of Practice, which applies to data obtained under section 60A of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, as well as GDPR and Data Protection, we have been unable to fulfil this request as the law does not allow us to share it.
“By disclosing this data to a third party, officers would be unable to comply with the requirements set out in law, including having no control over how it is stored, if it is shared beyond the agreed parameters and if it is retained beyond the legally permitted time period. The information also holds private data belonging to other members of the public,” she added.
The family has made a formal complaint about the police’s handling of the case, and earlier this week Jack’s mum Catherine O’Sullivan said they had ‘no support’.
In the first six months of the search for Jack, police deployed the drone unit 16 times, scoured more than 100 hours of CCTV, the police dive team spent 200 hours searching the river and surrounding banks, officers mounted 40 searches of the land around the Cumberland Basin and searched the area from the city centre to Flax Bourton, as well as on the Ashton Court Estate and Long Ashton.
ACC Joanne Hall said: “We have taken time to carefully consider the data request to see if there was any way we could agree to it in order for Jack’s family to get the answers they deserve following his disappearance.
“However, on this occasion, we are restricted by law and have been unable to identify a clear legal basis which would allow for the disclosure to take place,” she added.
Sign up to receive daily news updates and breaking news alerts straight to your inbox for free here.