In the past week I received several social media comments by safeguarding professionals about the recent case of the 14-year-old boy who sent a naked text of himself to a female class mate at school.

The boy took a naked selfie of himself in his bedroom and sent it to the girl on Snapchat, the social media network that deletes pictures and messages within a few hours. Unfortunately for this hapless young boy, the girl decided to save the picture on her phone. She then sent it to her friends.

At this point his sexting prank became very serious and it was referred to a police officer who was based at the school. The officer allegedly (according to BBC’s Today radio programme) told the boy’s mother he would be on an offender’s register for 10 years for making and distributing indecent images, and this could affect his future employment.

Following the hue and cry surrounding the case, the boy has apparently become introverted and overcome with feelings of shame and humiliation over what was a not-very-clever prank.

The child was arguably vulnerable at the time the safeguarding partners decided to go ahead with the judgement, and equally vulnerable as a result of his own actions. Personally I would hope anyone connected with him would have done their utmost to reduce that level of vulnerability, while ensuring he knew his actions were unacceptable.

Police National Database

Nevertheless, his name and personal details will now be available to every police force across the country through a Police National Database (PND) check.

Ten years will clearly take him through whatever educational path he chooses. This could include higher education, attempts to gain employment and may even see him wish to work abroad where a work permit or visa may be required. A lot can happen in 10 years.

Two things worry me about this case.

The first is the way the local force has viewed the new National Strategy for the Policing of Children and Young People published by the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) for England and Wales a body which has replaced the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

This strategy is on face value a game changer and very much welcomed by many of us in respect of the way the police service dealt with children and young people who it came into contact with. For years the service wrangled with the difficult issue of the criminalisation of the young who make daft or stupid decisions while growing up.

Let’s all embrace a huge amount of honesty here before we forget our youth forever. We may not all have texted or emailed naked pictures of ourselves (neither medium had been invented when I was the lad’s age and I don’t recall having the urge), but I bet many of us can remember doing stupid things that if we had been found out could have been viewed as anti-social or at worse unlawful!

The new NPCC strategy clearly states that in any encounter with a young person under the age of 18 or under the service should view the individual as a child. It states ‘a full understanding of their circumstances should be sought…this may not affect the way we utilise the criminal justice system but it should open our eyes to alternative avenues for addressing their behaviour.’

Interestingly in this case it also suggests every interaction should be positive and that all officers must have regard for the vulnerability of the child or young person.

Unveiled and ditched without ceremony

So why has this child been labelled like this for the next 10 years? One Tweet to me from a safeguarding professional summed up the many comments I have heard in the last week concerning the case and the strategy: “Unveiled and ditched without ceremony.”

Deputy chief constable Olivia Pinkney, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for children and young people, explained away the problem by saying schools have the prerogative in these situations.

Moreover, decisions to take such incidents further are up to the discretion of the officer involved.

“If any party chooses to report the incident to police, the Home Office counting rules are clear that it must be recorded as a crime,” she was quoted in the Guardian.

I suggest the NPCC and Deputy Chief Constable Olivia Pinckney need to be clear in their determination not to row back from what is a hugely refreshing position concerning this issue.

Unfortunately, this case and its widespread reporting has in my view done just that, which is a real shame.

The second point: what is the policing purpose given the circumstances for the retention of this personal data on a police database for a decade?

National Retention Assessment Criteria

The Management of Police Information guidance and the National Retention Assessment Criteria suggests the need for a policing purpose and any retention having to pass a proportionality test. Not sure I can see either here.

I hope the police service and Ms Pickney reinforce their commitment to the new strategic position concerning the police services’ interaction with children, which many of us involved in this type of work wholeheartedly support, by reviewing this case and removing the boy’s data from their files. It needs to happen before it fundamentally affect his life chances at some point in the next 10 years.