Officials withhold fugitive names
The Ministry of Justice has refused to name dozens of prisoners who have escaped from an open prison, saying it could breach data protection laws.
The 39 inmates went on the run from Hollesley Bay open prison at Woodbridge in Suffolk over a two-year period.
A newspaper had requested their details under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Prison Service said the ministry released fugitives' names at the time of their escape, but that any further release was a matter for the police.
'Intolerable and unacceptable'
The East Anglian Daily Times asked for information on every prisoner to have absconded from Hollesley Bay from January 2007 to March 2009.
The Ministry of Justice disclosed the numbers involved and their crimes but refused to name them.
In a letter refusing the request, officials wrote: "It is the general policy of the Ministry of Justice not to disclose, to a third party, personal information about another person.
"This is because the Ministry of Justice has obligations under the Data Protection Act and in law generally to protect this information."
Suffolk Coastal MP John Gummer condemned the decision.
He said: "It's intolerable and entirely unacceptable. There is no sense in which a prisoner's identity is a private matter.
"In my view he sacrifices that when he becomes a prisoner. This annoys me very much indeed. We have gone mad if this is what we are doing."
'Operational matter'
Shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve said the government was not obliged by the law on privacy to withhold the identity of fugitive prisoners.
"The justice secretary must stop blaming his own legislation for his own lack of transparency - it only fuels public suspicion that he is really trying to avoid political embarrassment," he said.
A Prison Service spokesman said: "When someone absconds from prison, the Ministry of Justice provides journalists with the prisoner's name and details of their offence, unless a court order is in place preventing us from doing so.
"However, any further release of information must be an operational matter for the police."
The Ministry of Justice has refused to name dozens of prisoners who have escaped from an open prison, saying it could breach data protection laws.
The 39 inmates went on the run from Hollesley Bay open prison at Woodbridge in Suffolk over a two-year period.
A newspaper had requested their details under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Prison Service said the ministry released fugitives' names at the time of their escape, but that any further release was a matter for the police.
'Intolerable and unacceptable'
The East Anglian Daily Times asked for information on every prisoner to have absconded from Hollesley Bay from January 2007 to March 2009.
The Ministry of Justice disclosed the numbers involved and their crimes but refused to name them.
In a letter refusing the request, officials wrote: "It is the general policy of the Ministry of Justice not to disclose, to a third party, personal information about another person.
"This is because the Ministry of Justice has obligations under the Data Protection Act and in law generally to protect this information."
Suffolk Coastal MP John Gummer condemned the decision.
He said: "It's intolerable and entirely unacceptable. There is no sense in which a prisoner's identity is a private matter.
"In my view he sacrifices that when he becomes a prisoner. This annoys me very much indeed. We have gone mad if this is what we are doing."
'Operational matter'
Shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve said the government was not obliged by the law on privacy to withhold the identity of fugitive prisoners.
"The justice secretary must stop blaming his own legislation for his own lack of transparency - it only fuels public suspicion that he is really trying to avoid political embarrassment," he said.
A Prison Service spokesman said: "When someone absconds from prison, the Ministry of Justice provides journalists with the prisoner's name and details of their offence, unless a court order is in place preventing us from doing so.
"However, any further release of information must be an operational matter for the police."
