RGP officers fined £5,000 for data breaches

A serving Royal Gibraltar Police officer and a former police officer have been fined £5,000 each for sharing sensitive police data with a person who was actively under investigation.

Serving RGP inspector Sean Picton, 37, and former police constable, Anthony Bolaños, 38, admitted to charges of unlawfully obtaining and disclosing police material without the consent of the data controller during a period between October 2022 and January 2023.

Prosecutor Johann Fernandez told the court that Bolaños’ mobile had been seized in a separate matter and, when searched, police found a conversation between him and Picton.

The court heard how the person under investigation messaged Bolaños, who had resigned from the RGP a year earlier, asking for a “favour”.

Bolaños in turn messaged Picton asking him for information on this matter.

Picton accessed the police database and subsequently supplied information about the investigation obtained from police records.

Picton was then appointed to overview the matter and shared information with Bolaños that the matter would be disposed of as a caution.

Bolaños informed the person under investigation and gave assurances that the matter was being dealt with and “not to worry”.

The court heard how an RGP chief inspector had given final approval to proceed with the caution, but weeks later rescinded this and proceeded with the matter and the person was charged.

Defence lawyer Shane Danino submitted that it was not the defendants’ intention to cause harm and that the actual harm was insignificant in this case.

In sentencing, Puisne Judge Matthew Happold said that the defendants had acted knowingly and, given the positions they held, this meant they knew what they were doing was wrong.

“In your case, Mr Picton, you acted in breach of trust. In yours, Mr Bolaños, you knew you were assisting Mr Picton to breach the trust conferred on him,” Mr Justice Happold said.

“Moreover, your offending was not committed on one occasion but over a period of time, so

it cannot be said either of you acted impulsively. Your offending was deliberate.”

Mr Justice Happold rejected the suggestion that the harm caused was minimal.

“Any unlawful disclosure of personal data held by the police about a suspect causes significant harm, regardless of what may be the consequences of the disclosure for the investigation to which it relates, because it undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the police,” the judge said.

Mr Justice Happold fined both men £5,000 each and ordered the fine to be paid within four months, adding failure to do so would result in three months’ imprisonment.

After the sentencing, Picton and Bolaños issued a press statement describing how they felt vindicated following the proceedings.

Picton had previously faced a charge of misconduct in public office and Bolaños one of aiding and abetting misconduct in public office.

Last month, the Crown withdrew these charges and instead introduced less serious charges of obtaining and disclosing data, which the defendants pleaded guilty to.

Picton and Bolaños said the initial allegation of misconduct in public office carried the real prospect of imprisonment, and added they pleaded guilty to the lesser charges for “practical reasons”.

“From the outset, we maintained that the misconduct in public office allegation was oppressive, inappropriate and disproportionate,” the men said.

“An application was made to stay those proceedings as an abuse of process. Whilst that application was refused, the subsequent and substantial dilution of the case against us speaks clearly to the true nature and scale of the issues involved.”

“We entered guilty pleas to the data protection offences for practical reasons; to bring finality to a process that has spanned years and caused significant personal, emotional, and financial strain.”

“The decision to plead was taken to avoid the continued stress and cost of prolonged proceedings and to allow all parties to move on in light of the diminishment of the case.”

“These new offences are of a fundamentally different and far less serious character than the allegation originally pursued.”

“They do not reflect the level of misconduct that was previously alleged, nor the narrative that surrounded it.”

“We respect the court process. [Monday's] outcome allows us to finally close this chapter, begin rebuilding our lives. We do, however, reserve our rights to legal recourse in relation to any outstanding issues.”

“We would like to take the opportunity to thank our families and our legal team for their support and counsel throughout.”