Commentary on provisions of Act Section 10: Disclosure by the Regulator
Section 10 provides the Regulator with a power to disclose information received to public bodies and sets out conditions on such disclosure.
	Subsection (1) allows the Regulator to disclose information to other public authorities, including the public authorities of the Devolved Administrations, if the disclosure is made for the purpose of enabling or assisting the other public authority to discharge any of its functions (’public authorities’ is defined in subsection (5)). The power only covers information received in connection with the Regulator’s functions. The power can only be exercised to disclose information that helps the public body exercise its functions or is otherwise relevant to those functions.
	Subsections (2) to (4) make standard provision as to the exercise of this type of information sharing power. The Regulator’s power to provide information will override any obligation of confidence or any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed). However, this provision will not authorise a disclosure, in contravention of the data protection legislation (as defined in Section 3 Data Protection Act 2018), of personal data which are not exempt from those provisions or a disclosure which is prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
	The Regulator would typically share data in relation to investigations into concerns about the quality of work in forensic science. The sorts of personal data which may be shared include, but are not limited to:
	Information about practitioners who are believed to have failed to work to the standards expected. This could include information about criminal investigations into the work of that person.
	Information about persons who were the complainant or suspect in the criminal investigation. This may be in the form of statements, reports etc.
	Information about people involved in the investigation of concerns (e.g. experts commissioned to review cases).
	Such information would only be shared to the extent necessary to effectively deal with the investigation or the consequences of the particular issue at hand. Examples would include, but are not limited to:
	sharing the information with NPCC led Gold Groups,
	communications with the CPS about the cases and potential impact of the events on the case,
	communications with the police investigating the matter,
	communications with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and
	briefing relevant Government Departments/Ministers.