Sussex Police Company CyberSecurity Posture

police.uk
ISOSOC2 Type 1SOC2 Type 2PCI DSSHIPAAGDPR

We do more than you might expect. We prevent crime, lead successful operations and complex investigations, make arrests, and go the extra mile to keep our local communities safe. From patrolling neighbourhoods and responding to emergencies to conducting criminal investigations and community policing, we have specialist teams, roles, and skillsets dedicated to ensuring the safety and security of the people we serve. We do what it takes to protect our major cities, seaports, coastlines, rural villages, and international airport. As you can see, we have a lot of ground to cover, but this means plenty of scope for satisfying careers, professional development, progression and endless opportunities to improve our county. We’re proud of our purpose and we’re deeply committed to protecting our communities, catching criminals and delivering an outstanding service. We are Sussex Police, are you?

Sussex Police A.I CyberSecurity Scoring

Sussex Police

Company Details

Linkedin ID:

sussex-police

Website:

https://www.sussex.police.uk

Employees number:

2,004

Number of followers:

13,223

NAICS:

92212

Industry Type:

Law Enforcement

Homepage:

police.uk

IP Addresses:

Scan still pending

Company ID:

SUS_9752131

Scan Status:

In-progress

AI scoreSussex Police Risk Score (AI oriented)

Between 650 and 699

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sussex-police.jpeg
Sussex Police Law Enforcement
Updated:
  • Powered by our proprietary A.I cyber incident model
  • Insurance preferes TPRM score to calculate premium
globalscoreSussex Police Global Score (TPRM)

XXXX

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sussex-police.jpeg
Sussex Police Law Enforcement
  • Instant access to detailed risk factors
  • Benchmark vs. industry & size peers
  • Vulnerabilities
  • Findings

Sussex Police

Weak
Current Score
665
B (Weak)
01000
2 incidents
-68.0 avg impact

Incident timeline with MITRE ATT&CK tactics, techniques, and mitigations.

JANUARY 2026
665
DECEMBER 2025
662
NOVEMBER 2025
728
Breach
03 Nov 2025 • Sussex Police
GDPR Data Breach Claims: Farley v Paymaster (UK) and Quirinbank (EU)

Sussex Police experienced a GDPR breach involving the misdelivery of **annual pension benefit statements** to outdated addresses of pension scheme members. The exposed data included sensitive personal information such as **salaries, dates of birth, and accrued pension entitlements**. While there was no evidence that the misdelivered statements were opened or that the data was misused, affected members filed a **collective action lawsuit** under UK GDPR, citing **psychiatric injury and fear of third-party misuse**. Each claimant sought **£1,250 in compensation**. The UK Court of Appeal ruled that **emotional distress and fear of misuse**—even without concrete harm—could constitute **non-material damage** under GDPR, lowering the threshold for future mass claims. The breach was self-reported by Sussex Police to the UK Information Commissioner, and notifications were sent to affected individuals, which **triggered the class action**. The case highlights the rising risk of **private litigation** for GDPR non-compliance, even in low-risk scenarios.

660
high -68
SUS3003230110425
Incident Details -
Type
Data Breach GDPR Non-Compliance Privacy Violation
Vulnerability Exploited
Human Error (Incorrect Address Usage) Improper Data Handling
Impact
Salaries Dates of Birth Pension Entitlements Job Applicant Salary Expectations Class Action Lawsuits (UK) Individual Claims (EU) Potential erosion of trust due to litigation publicity Increased scrutiny of GDPR compliance practices Private GDPR Lawsuits (UK/EU) Potential Class Actions under EU Representative Actions Directive Injunctions for Future Data Processing Low (no evidence of misuse in Farley case) Potential (Quirinbank case)
Response
Data Breach Notification to Affected Individuals (Sussex Police) Notification to UK Information Commissioner Transparency (Sussex Police) Legal Defense Preparation
Data Breach
Personal Identifiable Information (PII) Financial Information (Salaries/Pensions) Employment Data Sensitivity Of Data: High Data Exfiltration: No (Farley case: misdelivered physical mail; Quirinbank case: email to unintended recipient) Physical Mail (Farley) Email (Quirinbank) Names Dates of Birth Salaries Pension Details Job Application Data
Regulatory Compliance
UK GDPR (Article 82: Right to Compensation) EU GDPR (Article 82: Right to Compensation) EU Representative Actions Directive (Class Action Risk) Farley v Paymaster [2025] EWCA Civ 1117 (UK Court of Appeal) Quirinbank (Case C-665/23, EU:C:2025:655, ECJ) UK Information Commissioner (Sussex Police)
Lessons Learned
GDPR breach notifications can trigger private lawsuits even in low-risk cases; weigh transparency against litigation risks. Non-material damages (e.g., emotional distress) are increasingly actionable under GDPR, lowering the bar for claims. Class-action-style litigation is emerging in the EU via the Representative Actions Directive. Companies must align breach response strategies with potential litigation defenses, including documentation and communications. Monitor EU case law for GDPR interpretations, as UK courts may follow ECJ rulings despite post-Brexit divergence.
Recommendations
Revisit data breach response plans to assess litigation risks before notifying affected individuals. Train staff on proper data handling (e.g., address verification) to prevent human-error breaches. Document breach responses meticulously to support legal defenses in potential lawsuits. Consider the threshold for issuing GDPR notifications, balancing transparency with litigation exposure. Prepare for class-action risks under the EU Representative Actions Directive, especially for large-scale breaches. Evaluate insurance coverage for GDPR-related litigation and non-material damages.
Investigation Status
Closed (Legal Rulings Issued)
Customer Advisories
Affected individuals in the UK/EU may now have broader grounds to claim compensation for GDPR breaches, even without proven harm. Monitor communications from organizations involved in data breaches for potential legal recourse.
Stakeholder Advisories
Companies should anticipate higher GDPR litigation risks and adjust compliance strategies accordingly. Legal teams should collaborate with data protection officers to align breach responses with litigation defenses.
Post Incident Analysis
Human error (incorrect mailing addresses in Farley case) Improper recipient selection (Quirinbank case) Lack of verification processes for sensitive data dissemination Implement address verification protocols for physical mail containing PII. Enhance email recipient validation for sensitive communications. Conduct GDPR litigation risk assessments as part of breach response planning.
References
Blog URL Source URL
OCTOBER 2025
766
SEPTEMBER 2025
727
AUGUST 2025
727
JULY 2025
726
JUNE 2025
725
MAY 2025
725
APRIL 2025
724
MARCH 2025
723
FEBRUARY 2025
722
OCTOBER 2022
766
Breach
01 Oct 2022 • UK Police: Misconduct charges dropped against RGP inspector and former PC - guilty pleas to data breach
Former Police Officers Admit to Unauthorized Data Access and Sharing

**Former Police Officers Admit to Unauthorized Data Access and Sharing in UK Court Case** Two former police officers, Sean Picton and Anthony Bolaños, pleaded guilty to charges of unlawfully obtaining and sharing personal data without consent between October 2022 and January 2023. The case, heard at the UK Supreme Court, centered on Picton’s unauthorized access to sensitive information, which he then shared with Bolaños, who subsequently disclosed it to a third party. Originally, Picton had denied more severe charges, including misconduct in public office and unauthorized computer access, while Bolaños faced allegations of aiding and abetting misconduct. However, both admitted to the reduced charges of data protection violations. Judge Matthew Happold acknowledged that the original charges carried a potential life sentence, whereas the data offenses typically result in fines. He noted that while a conviction for the more serious offenses was plausible, the prosecution had opted for the lesser charges after careful consideration. The case underscores concerns over unauthorized data handling within law enforcement, highlighting the legal consequences of mishandling sensitive information.

693
critical -73
SUS1769125781
Incident Details -
Type
Unauthorized Data Access
Attack Vector
Insider Threat
Vulnerability Exploited
Lack of access controls and monitoring
Motivation
Unauthorized sharing of sensitive information
Impact
Data Compromised: Personal and sensitive information Brand Reputation Impact: Negative impact on law enforcement trust Legal Liabilities: Fines and legal consequences Identity Theft Risk: High
Data Breach
Type Of Data Compromised: Personal and sensitive information Sensitivity Of Data: High Data Exfiltration: Yes Personally Identifiable Information: Yes
Regulatory Compliance
Regulations Violated: Data Protection Laws Legal Actions: Guilty plea to data protection violations
Lessons Learned
Importance of access controls and monitoring in law enforcement to prevent unauthorized data access and sharing.
Recommendations
Implement stricter access controls, regular audits, and enhanced monitoring of sensitive data access within law enforcement agencies.
Investigation Status
['Concluded']
Post Incident Analysis
Root Causes: Lack of access controls and monitoring, insider threat
References
Blog URL Source URL

Frequently Asked Questions

According to Rankiteo, the current A.I.-based Cyber Score for Sussex Police is 665, which corresponds to a Weak rating.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for December 2025 was 662.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for November 2025 was 728.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for October 2025 was 766.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for September 2025 was 727.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for August 2025 was 727.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for July 2025 was 726.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for June 2025 was 725.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for May 2025 was 725.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for April 2025 was 724.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for March 2025 was 723.

According to Rankiteo, the A.I. Rankiteo Cyber Score for February 2025 was 722.

Over the past 12 months, the average per-incident point impact on Sussex Police’s A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score has been -68.0 points.

You can access Sussex Police’s cyber incident details on Rankiteo by visiting the following link: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/sussex-police.

You can find the summary of the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology on Rankiteo by visiting the following link: Rankiteo Algorithm.

You can view Sussex Police’s profile page on Rankiteo by visiting the following link: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/sussex-police.

With scores of 18.5/20 from OpenAI ChatGPT, 20/20 from Mistral AI, and 17/20 from Claude AI, the A.I. Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology is validated as a market leader.