‘Sexting’ boy commits no crime but claims will stay on his record

ALLEGATIONS made against a teenager that he “sexted” girls at his school could remain on his police file until he is 100 – even though he was never convicted of any offence.

The boy, known only as CL, lost a High Court legal bid to force the police to delete the details of the case.

The teenager, 14 at the time of the first incident, was never convicted of a crime and did not receive a police caution. But the details of the incidents could now be disclosed to potential employers under enhanced criminal re- cord checks.

Under guidance issued by the College of Policing, crime reports in relation to “public protection matters”, including sexting, may be retained until the subject reaches the age of 100.

The case could affect thousands more children investigated by police for sexting. The boy had first sought to have the incidents deleted three years ago but giving judgment in London yesterday, Lord Justice Hickinbottom said that “the interference with the claimant’s right to privacy is modest” and that “the retention of the information in respect of each incident is well justified”. Lawyers for the teenager had argued that the “blanket and indiscriminate approach to recording personal details without regard to the fact that CL was a minor” was unlawful.

Amanda Weston QC, CL’S barrister, said at a hearing last year that the potential impact on the boy of the police retaining the reports was “immense and likely to have a number of consequences for him”. Enver Solomon, chief executive of Just For Kids Law, a charity that brought the case, said: “We are disappointed. We are concerned that unproven allegations can then be disclosed in later life, potentially damaging future education and employment opportunities.”

CL had first been investigated by Greater Manchester Police in February 2015 after allegedly swapping sexual images with a girl. A month later, CL was reported over claims he swapped mobile phone photos with a second girl – although police decided “it was not in the public interest to pursue”.

A year later, a third girl alleged that CL had threatened to tell people they had slept together if she refused to send indecent pictures of herself.

Lord Justice Hickinbottom said that “the three reports (if true) fit a pattern of behaviour in the claimant that, over time, was increasingly serious”, and that retention of the information was in “the public interest”.