GROUP 3
INFORMATION SHARING IN MULTI-AGENCY COOPERATION
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members
Advisors

Mr. Benjamin C. Cutay Jr.
Mr. Thiago Ferreira OLIVERA
Mr. Tashi PHUNTSHOMr. Jeffrey Mala MESA
Mr. George Odhiambo DIANG’A
Ms. SHIMADA Tamaki,
Mr. NISHIMOTO Masao
Professor MINOURA Satoshi(Philippines)(Brazil)(Bhutan)(Papua New Guinea)(Kenya)(Japan)(Japan)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
Group 3 was composed of 7 members from 6 different countries. By consensus Mr. Benjamin C. Cutay
Jr was elected as Chairperson, Mr. Thiago Ferreira Olivera as Co-Chairperson, Mr. Tashi Phuntsho asRapporteur, and Mr. Jeffrey Mala Mesa as Co-Rapporteur.
The group’s topic for discussion was “Information Sharing in Multi-Agency Cooperation”. Discussionscommenced on 22 January 2016, after a steering address by the Advisor, Professor Satoshi Minoura. The
Chairperson then assumed the lead and set a tentative discussion schedule for the related sub-topics asfollows:
1. 22 January 2016: Types of offenders who benefit from Multi-agency Cooperation.
2. 25 January 2016: Information Analysis of offender and information sharing.
3. 28 January 2016: Information Analysis of offender and information sharing.
4. 1 February 2016: Problems of Legislation.
5. 2 February 2016: Problems of Legislation.

II. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
A. Types of Offenders and Offences Who Benefit from Multi-Agency Cooperation
1. Types of Offenders
D iscussion: Various types of offenders receive treatment from Criminal Justice Agencies. Define whattypes of offenders are fit for Multi-Agency Cooperation
The discussion surrounded what types of offenders should be subjected to treatment within multi-agency cooperation. The majority of the representatives (Bhutan, Brazil, Kenya and The Philippines) agreed
that all types of offenders, irrespective of their age, gender, race and criminal history, should be included in
multi-agency cooperation, as the treatment facilitated a greater assurance of reintegration into thecommunity.
There was a noted concern (Japan and PNG1) for all offenders with special considerations such as
juvenile and elderly offenders, offenders who are physically impaired and those that abused stimulant substances. These were viewed as special situations that would benefit from multi-agency cooperation, particularly as the recidivism rate among such offenders is very high in their respective countries.

1 Papua New Guinea

131

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
2. Types of Offences
Discussion: Analyse the various types of offences committed that are fit for Multi-Agency Treatment
There was agreement that multi-agency cooperation should render treatment for all types of offences(Brazil, Kenya and The Philippines), for misdemeanours, petty misdemeanours and violations (Bhutan). Recidivism was prevalent in offences such as substance abuse, larceny/robbery, and if not addressed properly
the offender may continue to affect themselves and the people around them (family, neighbours, community
at large), even to the extent of leading possibly to his/her death. For this reason, particular offences withhigh recidivism rates should be primarily treated (Japan and PNG).
3. Types of Support
Discussion: What types of support are available to offenders through multi-agency treatment?
Multi-agency cooperation support services are made available through various agencies’ collaboration,and when an offender commences or receives treatment, the success of keeping them from reoffending
may depend largely on the type and form of support they had during the process of reintegration.
Crime is committed for a variety of reasons but largely due to lack of housing, employment, skills,
mental impairment or substance addiction. Once this is recognized, the support programmes are made toaddress these situations with the aim to prevent recurrence of offending, and the multi-agency cooperation
ensures this support as per their needs. Support may be in the form of:
1. Job Assistance2. Housing Assistance
3. Medical treatment
4. Psychiatric treatment
5. Educational programmes
6. Rehabilitation clinics for substance abuse
7. 		 Social benefits
8. Any other assistance for offender treatment.
The information sharing in this regard is most useful as it enables the respective agencies to establish
information-based programmes which will or may effectively support offenders in their required situations.

Best Practice : All offenders, irrespective of the offence committed, should be treated through multiagency cooperation in information sharing. The recidivist should be primarily addressed, and the support
assistance for such offenders is primarily essential in starting a successful treatment.
B. Information Analysis of Offenders and Information Sharing
1. Information Which Should Be Shared among the Agencies.
D iscussion: What kinds of information are necessary for the effective implementation of multi-agency
cooperation?
Multi-agency cooperation is best explained as cooperation between agencies working in partnership for
a common concern (reduction of recidivism) in pursuit of a common goal, using their collaborative expertiseand resources.
To that end, the representative discussion was unanimous that a mutual working relationship andeffective information sharing should be observed by the multi-agency collaborative partnership which
would ensure the successful implementation of the treatment programmes.
The respective criminal justice systems may have bounds (legal or regulatory) within which respective
agencies can acquire or provide information concerning an offender. Therefore, information may be given132

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR
when needed, and then only in measured proportion and relevance as per an agency’s role and responsibility. An example is given by Japan; information on a juvenile collated by a Family Court Probation Officer
may be acquired by the organizations for the treatment of juvenile offenders. (When a juvenile reoffends,
the previous social investigation report will be used in the trial and the respective organizations involvedin the treatment of juveniles.) However, information for an adult will be restricted to a degree after thetrial.
It was interesting to note how personal information is approached and is treated in various countries.
Most can distinguish personal information to be sensitive/personal as opposed to general/personal; theformer being subject of stringent protection, and the latter more easily accessed. Although the Japanese
Personal Information Protection Act distinguishes sensitive information such as personal criminal records
from general information, even general information is strictly controlled by law as well as in practice.
Importantly, however, it was confirmed that sharing of private personal information in some countries
in the nature of (but not restricted to) personal bank account details (financial privacy), communication
privacy (telephone calls, text messages, emails, photographs, written correspondence/articles) and sensitive
personal health related matters (HIV AIDS, Tuberculosis) is strictly regulated and requires either ajudicial warrant or the express written consent of the offender for it to be accessed and shared. Juvenile
information and its access are also stringently regulated in keeping with the child’s best interest.
Recognizing all the above, it is agreed then that the following categories of information may be shared
among agencies for offender treatment:
1. Offender’s biographical data.
2. Nature of the offence.
3. Offender’s history of previous offences.
4. General health and mental conditions.
5. Behaviour and conduct while in a correctional facility.
6. Behaviour and conduct while in residential community.
7. 		 Education and skills training/level.
8. Employment history.
9. Offender’s compliance with previous court orders or sentences.
10. Circumstances and environment of the victim, and any compensation or civil commitment condition
to which the offender is subjected to pay by the Court.
This information is found to be necessary for the offender’s treatment/rehabilitation process at its respective stages involving the respective agencies. To share or acquire this information, the government
agencies must observe the protocol and courtesy of a formal request in writing to each other for it. Information can also be acquired through a shared database like the NCIS 2 (The Philippines), the CCIS 3(Bhutan) and the NCCPIP4 (PNG). In every instance that the file transfers may occur (privacy restrictions
notwithstanding), thereafter where necessary to ensure the operation of the process.
2. Sphere of Information
Discussion: Each Criminal Justice Agency holds different amounts of information on one (1) offender.
2 National Crime Information System.

3 Crime and Criminal Information System.

4 National Court Criminal Process Improvement Programme.

133

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
Consider not only how his/her information should be handled in the criminal justice process, but also
how much the private sector needs such information to provide effective cooperation.
Within the criminal justice process, the personal information of an offender must be shared freely
between involved government agencies, and all propriety must be observed by each in doing so, given theresponsibilities and discretion they are bounded by under the law.
Situations often arise where information must be shared with private agencies, who are also involved in
the treatment of offenders. How much information they are entitled to will depend on the nature of their
particular treatment service/facility, and it must be confined to what their requirements are, based onwhat is necessary.
Information sharing with private agencies should be done with great sensitivity toward the offender’spersonal privacy, considering the discussion above. While government agencies are bound by a legal duty
to apply an offender’s information in the proper circumstances for their treatment, private agencies may
operate outside of legal periphery which may lead to loss of confidentiality and trust where the danger ofinformation misuse may occur.
It follows then that, the type of personal information that needs to be shared with a private agency
must be what is necessary for that particular treatment/rehabilitation programme and without prejudice
to the offender where the misuse of an offender’s personal information outside of this purpose (treatment)
may result in legal action for privacy violation.
Private agencies are also subject to compliance with the formal written request protocol, as government agencies are.
3. Problems in the Handling of Offenders’ Personal Information
Discussion: Much information that is handled in the criminal justice process is offenders’ personal information. How should criminal justice agencies disclose the information collected by one agency toother agencies, including other government bodies and the private sector?
There is a concern that the personal information stored in databases of criminal justice agencies is susceptible to being hacked/illegally accessed. Such large volumes are competently stored and, considering
the frequency of its use by respective agencies at similarly frequent intervals, the problems cited are:
1. Privacy principles.
2. Unlawful practices or misuse of data, insecure practices.
3. Risk during data retention associated with data theft and network security threats.
4. Loss of drives or using portable drives while storing and carrying information.
Notwithstanding the above, it is recognized that all stakeholders and agencies have the right to accessinformation to effectively implement programmes based on their respective roles, but to work in collaboration with each other, the following recommendations are proposed:
1. Appoint designated data handlers with SOP5 to prevent unauthorized access and disclosure.
2. Timely exchange of information.
3. Information should be what is necessary, proportionate, relevant, accurate, and secure.
4. Share with consent wherever necessary.
5 Standard Operating Procedures.

134

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR
5. Frequent scrutiny regarding use of information provided should be carried out.
6. Integrated IT systems like the NCIS in the Philippines or the collaborative database of criminal
justice information of Japan is recommended for information sharing.
The victims’ perspective also needs to be considered here. This party’s information was valuable overall
in terms of restorative justice and mediation, all commensurate with the Probation and Volunteer Probation
Officers’ treatment of the offender. Consideration should be given to the burden placed on victims when
they are forced to relive the trauma by relating it repeatedly to different agencies during the criminal
justice process; the physical and psychological stress combined would be too taxing and insensitive.
To spare the victim, the initial interviewing agency should share information provided by the victim as
required to other government agencies in the process; victim information provided to private agencies
must be necessary to the particular treatment programme/facility. Further, the interviewing agency
should follow up on the victim over time as their circumstances might have changed enough to capably
handle treatment processes like speaking to the offender about the offence and expressing their feelings.
Best Practice: Information should be shared among all agencies concerned with the treatment ofoffenders, in proportion to their roles. Information given to private agencies is qualified for all purposes,
and the personal/sensitive information is subject to consent or a warrant. Formal written requests are tobe observed, and all data should be competently secured in databases. Victim information is valuable, to beobtained once and shared to agencies through the process. The victim can be a significant participant in
the treatment process of the offender.
C. Problems of Legislation
Discussion: What is the extent to which offenders’ personal information must be protected by laws
when criminal justice agencies and the private sector engage in multi-agency cooperation?
Legislation that pertains to agencies’ functions and roles in multi-agency cooperation and privacy laws
is fundamental in most countries (Japan, Kenya, the Philippines, Brazil and PNG); however, not all agencies
in Bhutan have a definitive legal basis, especially probation-oriented services. The group agreed that there
ought to be distinct legislation that links all agencies into a multi-corporate function of information sharing,working in tandem instead of at random.
Further, better coordination among the agencies would make a better working atmosphere with aculture of trust, cooperation, mutual understanding and commitment towards the common desired goal,
the treatment of offenders to reduce or prevent recidivism. This could be advanced by:a. Enacting laws or MOUs6 in countries that define agencies’ roles and their legal basis.
b. Ensuring that agencies understand their own functions and purposes, and operate more efficiently,
especially data collation.
c. Ensuring that agencies have a better understanding of each other’s functions and roles, and how
they are linked through multi-agency cooperation.
d. Regular meetings of the multi-agency cooperative for better cognizance.
e. Establishing better professional rapport between agencies.
f. 		 Better sharing of information between the agencies
g. Need to tackle institutional problems that prevent effective coordination.
All the participants agreed, when privacy is a concern, some information that can be disclosed is
6 Memorandum of Understanding.

135

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
handled as stated as above. Information that cannot be shared freely among the agencies include,
1. Bank account information
2. Communication privacy information
3. Fiscal information
4. Serious health conditions
Consideration turned to when an offender is seeking employment or housing in the private sector, howmuch of his/her information can be protected from a potential employer/tenement? It is a difficult scenario.
To begin with, the stigma of being avoided because of criminal history is a reality in every country.
Disclosing criminal history, especially if it was violent or aggravated in nature, may jeopardize chances for
employment or other opportunities. On the other hand, an accurate report of his/her prior history (e.g.,theft of a bike, not murder) may alleviate any anxiety a potential employer may have had, and lead to theoffender’s employment. This is consistent with the positive reaction that honest disclosure will assist in furthering any opportunity. In the end, it was observed that while the offender had the right not to disclose
his/her criminal history, the employer also had the right to protect his/her business and reputation —thus, the necessity to know as much as possible about an individual, offender or not. It is the contest ofbalancing the offenders’ interests against the employers’ interests.
A strategy that may strike this balance is that of completing a Statement of Purpose (the Philippines)
where an offender submits his/her history and other information, which the employer uses in good faith
only. Interestingly, when an employer has employed an offender, he now becomes held to protecting theoffender’s history absolutely; failure to do so will result in legal action for privacy violation if that information was misused to the offender’s detriment. A related experience (Japan) is that where an offender isemployed with a company, only the CEO is given the offender’s information and no one else in the company
knows, so that the information provided is protected and secure.
Best Practice: Healthy working rapport must be established among partner agencies to promote
efficient and effective treatment of the offender. Specific legislation to this end would be ideal to link themall. Private companies must exercise absolute discretion about the offender who is seeking employment,
housing, etc.

III. CONCLUSION
The group after deliberate discussion came up with the Best Practice approaches for every topic
discussed, and their collective summation is the best way to approach information sharing in multi-agencycooperation.
In summary, all types of offenders and offences will benefit from multi-agency cooperation, treatment
and support. In order to achieve this, the sharing of both the offender’s and victim’s information among theagencies involved in the criminal justice process is important, simultaneously acknowledging that information privacy should always be observed wherever necessary.
To give emphasis to multi-agency cooperation, it would be practical to enact legislation that links eachagency, thereby establishing a legal structure and basis to operate within. To complement the work ofmulti-agency cooperation, the community as a whole, both public and private, must treat offender information with sensitivity and due discretion when engaging with them. In the end, this goes to ensure that
offenders are reintegrated as members of the same community.

136