Tag Archives: Court Decisions (Privacy)

NT1 and NT2: Forgetting past misdemeanors

The so-called ‘right to be forgotten’ (hereafter “RTBF”) is an often trumpeted aspect of the GDPR; it is an important right, but one that is rather more restricted in nature than is understood.  The RTBF is not a new right within he GDPR, but has foundation within current data protection law and practice.  On 13 March 2014, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union gave its judgment in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González (“Google Spain”), which it has popularly been said created a ‘right to be forgotten’.  The court did not, in fact, grant a right to be forgotten; instead, the court required search engines, such as Google, to consider requests from individuals to have links to webpages concerning them de-listed from Google search results in certain circumstances.

Fast forward to 13th April 2018, a little over 4 years since the decision in Google Spain, Mr Justice Warby handed down his judgment in NT1 & NT 2 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB); cases which both concerned the RTBF.  NT1 and NT2 are both businessmen who were convicted of criminal offences.  In respect of NT1, he was involved in a controversial property business in the late 1980s and the early 1990s (while in his thirties).  In the late 1990s, while he was in his 40s, NT1 was prosecuted and convicted, after trial, of a criminal conspiracy connected with those business activities.  He was sentenced to a period of imprisonment and his conviction has since become “spent”.  In addition to the matters for which he was convicted, he was also accused of, but never prosecuted for, a separate conspiracy connected with the same business.  Some of the businesses former staff were eventually convicted in relation to that separate conspiracy.  There was media reporting of these and related matters at that time.  Links to that reporting are made available by Google in its search results.   On 28 June 2014, not long after the CJEU’s decision in Google Spain, NT1 made a de-listing request to Google in respect of six links.  Google agreed to block one link, but not the other 5.  Google stood by its position when NT 1 asked for them to reconsider their decision.  In January 2015, a second de-listing request was made by NT1, this time through his solicitors. Google replied to that de-listing enquiry in April 2015, refusing it.

NT2’s case is quite separate from that of NT1; the two claims were tried separately, but were heard one after the other and involved the same judge and the same representation.  NT2’s case has some similarity in terms of its facts and it raises similar issues of principle to that of NT1.  While in his 40s and sometime in the early 21st century, NT2 was involved in a controversial business which experienced public opposition in relation to its environmental practices.  NT2 pleaded guilty to two charges of conspiracy in connection with that business.  This was “rather more than ten years ago” [para 7].  NT2 received a short prison sentence and spent six weeks in custody before being released; his conviction also became spent.  On 14 April 2015, NT2 made a de-listing request to Google in respect of 8 links.  Google declined to de-list any of the links.

Ultimately, NT2 was successful in obtaining orders requiring Google to de-list while NT1 was unsuccessful.

Journalism, literature and art exemption

Google had, in its defence to these claims, sought to place reliance upon the exemption in section 32 of the Data Protection Act 1998, which relates to “journalism, literature and art”.  Warby J deals with this aspect of Google’s defence to the claims by the claimants in paragraphs 95-102 of the judgment.  Warby J ultimately rejected Google’s reliance upon section 32 holding that the exemption did not apply in the first place; but even if it did, Google would have failed to meet the part of the test which is contained in section 32(1)(b).  Warby J accepted that the EU law concept of journalism was a broad and elastic one which went beyond simply the activities of media undertakings and incorporates other activities which have as their aim the disclosure to the public of information, opinions and ideas. However, Warby J concluded that “the concept [of journalism] is not so elastic that it can be stretched to embrace every activity that has to do with conveying information or opinions. To label all such activity as “journalism” would be to elide the concept of journalism with that of communication.”

In Google Spain the CJEU was sceptical as to whether the exemption in Article 9 of the Directive (which is implemented through section 32 of the Data Protection Act 1998) would apply to an internet search engine such as Google.  Warby J noted that this observation by the CJEU was not integral to its decision in Google Spain; however, concluded that “it is true”.  Internet Search Engines do not, in the view of Wraby J, process personal data “only” for the purposes of journalism, literature or art.

In considering section 32 of the Data Protection Act 1998 Warby J concluded that there is a subjective and an objective element to each of section 32(1)(b) and (c).  In relation to section 32(1)(b) Warby J concluded that the data controller had to have a subjective belief that the publication of the personal data in question would be in the public interest and this belief must be objectively reasonable.  In respect of section 32(1)(c), Warby J considered that the data controller must prove that it had a subjective belief that compliance with the data protection principle(s) engaged would be incompatible with the special purpose and that belief must be one which is objectively reasonable.

Warby J explained in his judgment that if he was wrong in his conclusion that section 32 was not even engaged in this case, that he would have still rejected Google’s reliance upon it concluding that Google would have failed when it came to considering the test in section 32(1)(b).  There was no evidence, Warby J concluded, that “anyone at Google ever gave consideration to the public interest in continued publication of the URLs complained of, at any time before NT1 complained” [para 102]

Schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998

Clearly a great deal of the personal data at issue in these claims, being personal data relating to criminal convictions, is sensitive personal data (see section 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998).  In order for processing of sensitive personal data to be in compliance with the first data protection principle, which requires personal data to be processed fairly and lawfully, the data controller must be able to rely upon one of the conditions in Schedule 3 to the Data Protection Act 1998 (in addition to one of the Schedule 2 conditions).  This is an area where Google had a great deal of difficulty.

Warby J rejected most of the Schedule 3 grounds that Google sought reliance upon (see paras 107-109).  However, in paragraph 110 of his decision, Warby J, decides that condition 5 in Schedule 3 was satisfied: “that “the information contained in the personal data has been made public as a result of steps deliberately taken by the data subject.” In reaching this conclusion, Warby J relies upon the decision of Stephens J in Townsend v Google Inc [2017] NIQB 81.  In Townsend, Stephens J concluded that as a consequence of the principle of open justice, when an offender commits an offence, even in private, he deliberately makes that information public (see para 65 of Townsend).  In NT1 and NT2, Counsel for the Claimants, Hugh Tomlinson QC, takes issue with the conclusions of Stephen J and Counsel’s arguments are set out briefly by Warby J towards the end of paragraph 110.  Warby J concludes that, in his view, that the reasoning of Mr. Tomlinson was not sound.

I must confess that I have a great deal of difficulty with the reasoning of Warby J and Stephens J on this point.  I struggle to see how the commission of an offence by an individual amounts to them taking positive steps to make the information public.  The conclusions of Warby J and Stephens J do not seem to me to fit with the statutory language in the Data Protection Act 1998 nor the language of the Directive which it implements.  Warby J considered that the language in Article 8.2(e) of the Data Protection Directive is “obscure”.  It seems to me that the language of the Directive is the complete antitheses of “obscure” and that section 32 does not adequately implement the requirements of the Directive in this regard.  The only UK jurisdiction yet to grapple with this issue is Scotland.  Neither the Northern Irish nor the English and Welsh court decisions are from appellate level courts.  For the time being we have two first instance courts in two jurisdictions reaching the same conclusion; that will undoubtedly be considered somewhat persuasive by other first instance judges.

The balancing exercise

The court in Google Spain required a balancing exercise to take place between the rights within the European Convention on Human Rights to a private and family life (Article 8) and freedom of expression (Article 10).  Following Google Spain the ‘Article 29 Working Party’ (soon to become the European Data Protection Board) issued guidance on the Google Spain decision.  These guidelines provide helpful assistance, but do not prescribe the factors which are to be taken into consideration; it is acceptable to go beyond the factors in the guidance [para 135].

In respect of NT1, Warby J attached some weight to the conduct of the Claimant post-conviction; in particular, NT1 had caused to be published about him on the internet (by a reputation management company known in the judgment by the fictitious name of ‘cleanup’) misleading statements about his character and integrity:  NT1 had been convicted of a substantial offence of dishonesty and had received a substantial prison sentence for that.  This can be contrasted with NT2 who had not been convicted of an offence of dishonesty, had entered a plea of guilty and had shown remorse.

The contrast is an interesting one because while each case will inevitably turn on its own facts, it shows the kind of issues that the court is likely to take into consideration when balancing the competing Article 8 and 10 rights.

Interaction between the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and the Data Protection Act 1998

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (“ROA”) differs in Scotland from what is in force in England and Wales; of course, these claims deal with the ROA as it applies in England and Wales.  The differences in the substance of the Act do not, however, affect the principles which are in play when looking at the interaction between the ROA and data protection law.

The ROA creates a, somewhat limited, right to rehabilitation and Warby J concluded that this right to rehabilitation is an aspect of privacy law.  Warby J concluded that “[t]he rights and interests protected include the right to reputation, and the right to respect for family life and private life, including unhindered social interaction with others.” Furthermore, Warby J concluded that “[u]pholding the right [to rehabilitation] also tends to support a public or societal interest in the rehabilitation of offenders.”  Importantly though, the right to rehabilitation is a qualified right.  As with most cases involving rights, the rights of the offender to rehabilitation do come into conflict with the rights of others, in particular their rights to information and freedom of expression.

As a starting point, a person who is party to legal proceedings held in public (such as the accused in a criminal trial) does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  However, there may well come a point in time when they can have such an expectation.  The ROA works to prevent the disclosure of certain criminal offences for which a person has been convicted after a specified period of rehabilitation.  It does not, Warby J concluded, mean that in 1974 Parliament legislated for a right to privacy or confidentiality from the point at which the offence became “spent”.

The rehabilitated offender’s right to a family and private life in respect of a spent conviction will normally be a weighty factor against further use of disclosure of that information; however, it is not a conclusive factor.  The “balancing exercise will involve an assessment of the nature and extent of any actual or prospective harm. If the use or disclosure causes, or is likely to cause, serious or substantial interference with private or family life that will tend to add weight to the case for applying the general rule.” [para 166]

Paragraph 166 of Warby J’s judgment is well-worth reading in full for anyone who is involved in balancing exercises of this nature.

At the end of the day, de-indexing (or de-listing) from internet search results does not cause the information to disappear completely.  The effect that it has is to make the information more difficult to find.  It will still be possible for a person, with sufficient determination, to discover and access the information.  In the modern day world we are used to being able to put search terms into Google (and other search engines) and have millions, if not billions, of results returned to us in a fraction of a second.  The search engines have developed algorithms which help to bring the content that is seemingly most relevant to the top of those results with the seemingly least relevant placed at the end of the long list of results.  Information is much more readily available than it was in 1974; some might argue that cases such as NT1 and NT2 simply return the position back to something which more closely resembles 1974.

It is quite probable that we will begin to see cases like NT1 and NT2 arise more frequently.  The qualified right to erasure within the GDPR has attracted a lot of attention and individuals are certainly more aware of ‘the right to be forgotten’.  The GDPR arguably doesn’t take us forward from what was determined in Google Spain, but simply gives it a statutory basis as opposed to one that is derived mostly from case law.  The qualified right to erasure within the GDPR is, as noted above, often overstated and this will inevitably, in the event that people seek to enforce it more frequently, lead to disputes between controllers and data subjects.

Alistair Sloan

Should you require advice or assistance about UK Data Protection and Privacy law then contact Alistair Sloan on 0141 229 0880.  You can also contact him by E-mail.  You can also follow our dedicated Twitter account covering all Information Law matters:  @UKInfoLaw

Privacy v Freedom of Expression: ‘Can’t Pay? We’ll take it away’

Yesterday an interesting privacy judgment was handed down in the English High Court by Mr Justice Arnold.  The Claimants, Shakir Ali and Shahinda Aslam, brought proceedings against Channel 5 Broadcast Limited (“Channel 5”) for breaching their privacy in using footage of their eviction in the defendants’ television programme, ‘Can’t Pay?  We’ll take it away’.

‘Can’t Pay?  We’ll take it away’ is an observational documentary series broadcast by Channel 5 which follows the work of High Court Enforcement Agents.  The programme often features the evictions of tenants from residential premises by High Court Enforcement Agents and these agents pursuing debtors for the recovery of monies owed to their clients.  At Paragraph 58 of his judgment, Mr Justice Arnold states that the production company “wanted to show how the process which courts provided for the enforcement of debts and the reclaiming of property from debtors and tenants actually operated within ordinary peoples’ lives. He particularly wanted to show how landlords and creditors could expedite enforcement by moving the process from the County Court to the High Court, and the effect of this.”

The Claimants argued that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that this had been breached.  Meanwhile, the Defendants argued that the Claimants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Alternatively Channel 5 argued that if the Claimants did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, that was defeated by the Defendants’ rights to freedom of expression when the two were balanced against one another.  Channel 5 was responsible for selecting which enforcement actions that were filmed for the programme would actually appear in the television series.

On the day of the eviction, the Claimants were visited by two High Court Enforcement Agents; one of whom was in training and the other, Mr Paul Bohill, had more than 30 years’ experience as a High Court Enforcement Agent.  Only the first claimant was in the property when the Agents, together with a television film crew, arrived at the property to effect the eviction.  Certain information was supposed to be provided to those being filmed but the evidence proved that Mr Bohill actively prevented that information being given to the Claimants, even when the first claimant enquired about why it was being filmed.  Mr Justice Arnold covers the events of the eviction of the claimants, in detail, in paragraphs 70 – 115 of his judgment.

On 17th June 2015 the first claimant contacted the production company objecting to footage of his eviction being used in the television series.  He was told that they [the production company] needed to get their facts straight with regards to his benefits, but that his objections would be passed onto Channel 5 who made decisions about broadcast.

At paragraph 169 of his judgment, Mr Justice Arnold states that in his “judgment the principal factors relied upon by the Claimants do lead to the conclusion that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information in question. The Programme was largely filmed in their home; it showed them being evicted without prior warning; it showed them in a state of shock and distress; it showed them being taunted by Omar Ahmed; and it was foreseeable that the broadcasting of the Program me would have an adverse effect on their children. I do not accept that the open justice principle means that the Claimants’ Article 8 rights were not engaged. Open justice means that Channel 5 was entitled to report the facts that the courts had made the Order for Possession and issued the Writ of Possession and in consequence the Claimants had been lawfully evicted; but what happened in their home on 2 April 2015 was not part of the proceedings. Nor do I consider that the broadcasting of the information was an inevitable consequence of the Claimants’ failure to comply with the Order for Possession. Nor do I accept that Mr Ali’s Article 8 rights were  significantly weakened by his political activity.  Mrs Aslam had not engaged in political activity at all. I accept that the Claimants, and their children, had already suffered damage to their privacy as a result of the Ahmeds’ postings on social media, but I do not accept that this meant that the broadcasting of Programme either could not or did not inflict further damage given the substantial scale and duration of the broadcasting.”

In respect of the argument advanced on behalf of Channel 5, that Mr Ali had consented to being filmed, Mr Justice Arnold states that the consent was not “true consent”, was “an agreement to participate under protest” and “was not fully informed agreement given that he was not told anything about the programme that was being filmed or who would broadcast it or about the body cameras.” (paragraph 177).  In any event, Mr Justice Arnold held that “to the limited extent that he did give consent on 2 April 2015, he unequivocally withdrew that consent prior to the first broadcast of the Programme.” (paragraph 178).

Having found that the Claimants did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, it became necessary for the court to balance that against Channel 5’s rights to freedom of expression.  There was no dispute that there was a genuinely held belief by the production company and channel 5 that the programme was in the public interest; however, there was a dispute between the parties as to whether that was enough or whether it had to be assessed objectively.  Mr Justice Arnold concluded that it was clear that the court had to assess it objectively.

Channel 5 argued that “the programme addressed a number of matters of real public interest and concern: increasing levels of personal debt, and in particular rent arrears of tenants in privately-rented accommodation; the dependence of tenants on benefits, and in particular housing benefit; the effect of enforcement of writs of possession by HCEAs; and the consequences for both landlords and tenants. He further submitted that it was justified for Channel 5 to illustrate these matters by showing what happened to real people in real situations, because that was the best way to engage the public and stimulate debate.”

At paragraph 195, Mr Justice Arnold concludes that “the Programme did contribute to a debate of general interest, but…the inclusion of the Claimants’ private information in the Programme went beyond what was justified for that purpose…The focus of the Programme was not upon the matters of public interest, but upon the drama of the conflict between Omar Ahmed [the landlord] and the Claimants. Moreover, that conflict had been encouraged by Mr Bohill…”

Mr Justice Arnold ultimately concluded that when balancing the rights of the Claimants to a private and family life against Channel 5’s rights to freedom of expression, the balance came down in favour of the Claimants’ Article 8 rights.  Each claimant was ultimately awarded £10,000 in damages.

This case raises a number of questions about similar style programmes regularly broadcast on television in the United Kingdom.  It is possible that Channel 5 might face claims from others featured in ‘Can’t Pay?  We’ll take it away’ arising out of the publicity that this judgment has received.  Of course, Channel 5 might well decide to appeal the decision; however, in the meantime broadcasters who broadcast similar style programmes and the production companies who make them ought to reflect upon the decision in the meantime and take it into account when making decisions about programming content of that nature.  It is clear that individuals in these situations do have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  There will be circumstances where the broadcasters’ freedom of expression will defeat the privacy rights of the individuals; however, there will need to be a genuine attempt to cover matters of public interest.  If it is simply for the prupose of entertainment, then broadcasters could find themselves being sued for breach of privacy if they do not have informed consent from the individuals featured (or do not take steps to protect the identities of those featured).

Alistair Sloan

If you would like advice or assistance in respect of a privacy/data protection issue or any other information law matter then contact Alistair Sloan on 0345 450 0123 or send him an E-mail.

Ireland: High Court to refer Privacy Shield to the Court of Justice of the European Union

One of the primary requirements of the European Data Protection Framework is that personal data of European citizens must not be transferred to a country which is outside of the European Economic Area unless the country to which the personal data is to be transferred “ensures an adequate level of protection”; this is provided for within Article 25 of the 1995 Data Protection Directive and is given effect to in the UK in the form of the eighth data protection principle in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998.

The United States of America has, for some time, been a somewhat contentious destination for personal data of European citizens.  The European Commission and the United States Government sought to assist the flow of personal data between the EU and the US through a scheme called “Safe Harbour”.  This scheme was challenged and in 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the European Commission’s decision in respect of the “safe harbour” scheme was invalid.

The Court of Justice’s decision on safe harbour came following a request for a preliminary ruling by the Irish High Court.  This followed a complaint to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner by an Austrian citizen, Max Schrems, in respect of Facebook.  Under Facebook’s terms and conditions all of its users in Europe have a relationship with ‘Facebook Ireland’ and as such, it falls to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner to regulate the use of personal data by Facebook.

Following that decision the European Commission and the US negotiated a new scheme, known as “Privacy Shield”.   There has been much debate about whether privacy shield is itself adequate and a challenge, also by Max Schrems, is underway.  The Irish Data Protection Commissioner sought from the Irish High Court a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union and today the Irish High Court has agreed to make the reference.

The Irish Data Protection Commissioner has, the court decided, identified a number of “well founded concerns” and that the introduction of the Privacy Shield Ombudsman mechanism does not “eliminate” those concerns.

Although this is an Irish case, the outcome of a decision from the Court of Justice of of the European Union could have profound consequences for data controller’s right across the European Union.  In the event that the Court invalidates the privacy shield agreement, data controllers who are reliant upon it will find themselves in a situation where their compliance with data protection laws will be in doubt.

The exact questions which will be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union by the Irish High Court are yet to be determined and the judge in the case will be addressed by parties on this issue in due course.

This is certainly a case that data controllers (and indeed data subjects) should keep a close eye on.  Data controllers who transfer personal data from the EU to the United States of America should think about reviewing their transfers and assessing whether they would continue to be permitted, within the context of the EU data protection framework, in the event that privacy shield is invalidated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in due course.

Alistair Sloan

If you would like advice or assistance on a data protection/privacy matter, or any other information law matter, then you can contact Alistair Sloan on 0345 0345 450 0123.  Alternatively, you can send him an E-mail.

Privacy and the Monitoring of Communications in the Employment Setting

On 5th September 2017 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights issued its decision in the case of Bărbulescu v. Romania, which considers the application of the right to a private and family life contained in Article 8 of the European Court of Human Rights to the monitoring of a person’s communications by their employer.

The background to the case is that an employee was dismissed by his employer for making use of company equipment and services (internet connection and computer) for personal purposes during working hours; in particular, he had been sending personal messages (some of which were of an “intimate nature”) to his brother and fiancée.  The company’s internal policies prohibited this use and after following the disciplinary process required by Romanian domestic law, he was dismissed.  He brought a case in the domestic courts and was unsuccessful in all of those courts.  He then brought a case before the European Court of Human Rights which ultimately ended up with the Grand Chamber issuing its decision on 5th September 2017.  The procedural background to the case is more fully set out in the Court’s judgment.

The Court stated that the relationship between an employee and their employer “is contractual, with particular rights and obligations on either side, and is characterised by legal subordination.” (paragraph 117) The court went on to state, at paragraph 118, that “labour law leaves room for negotiation between the parties to the contract of employment.  Thus, it is generally for the parties themselves to regulate a significant part of the content of their relations.”

In terms of the margin of appreciation afforded to States under the European Convention of Human Rights, the Court decided, at paragraph 119, that States “must be granted a wide margin of appreciation in assessing the need to establish a legal framework governing the conditions in which an employer may regulate electronic or other communications of a non-professional nature by its employees in the workplace.”  However, the Court went on to state, in paragraph 120 of its judgment, that “the discretion enjoyed by States in this field cannot be unlimited.  The domestic authorities should ensure that the introduction by an employer of measures to monitor correspondence and other communications, irrespective of the extent and duration of such measures, is accompanied by adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse.”  These adequate and sufficient safeguards, the court stated at paragraph 121, “are essential.”

The Court sets out five factors which it considers domestic authorities should treat as being relevant:

  1. What notification has been given to the employee regarding the possibility that the employer might take measures to monitor their correspondence and other communications, and what notification the employee has been given regarding the implementation of these measures;
  2. The extent of the monitoring by the employer and the degree of intrusion into the employee’s privacy (a distinction should be drawn between simply monitoring the flow of communications and the monitoring of the content of the communications);
  3. The reasons the employer has provided to justify the monitoring of their communications and their actual content – greater justification will be required for monitoring the content as opposed to just the flow;
  4. Whether it would have been possible for the employer to have in place a monitoring system that was based on less intrusive methods and measures than simply directly accessing the content of the employee’s communications;
  5. The consequences of the monitoring for the employee subjected to it, and the use made by the employer of the results of the monitoring operation, in particular whether the results were used to achieve the declared aim of the measure;
  6. Whether there were adequate safeguards in place; especially when the employer’s monitoring operations are of an intrusive nature.

This case makes it clear that it can be legitimate for an employer to monitor, not only the flow of private communications made by an employee on company systems, but also the actual content of the correspondence.  However, employers do not have an unlimited right.

Employers will have to think carefully about what aims they are trying to achieve by the monitoring of communications by employees on company systems and whether their proposed method of monitoring is proportionate with that aim.  Furthermore, employees should be given clear and fair notice of what monitoring is taking place and the purpose for the monitoring.

Employers will also need to give careful consideration to the safeguards that they need to have in place with regards to the monitoring procedures they have in place and ensure that what safeguards they do have in place are adequate.  With regards to safeguards, the court specifically stated that employers should not have access to the actual content of the correspondence concerned unless the employee has been notified in advance.

The court has also said that domestic authorities should ensure that any employee whose communications have been monitored has access to a remedy before a judicial body and that judicial body should have jurisdiction to determine, at least in substance, how the six criteria set out in its judgment have been observed and whether the impugned measures were in fact lawful.

This decision doesn’t really change the law as it already operated.  The decision does not prevent employers from undertaking the monitoring of communications by their employees on the employer’s systems.  However, the decision does act as a useful reminder that the ability to conduct such monitoring activities is not wholly unrestrained.  The decision, coupled with the forthcoming applicability of the General Data Protection Regulation, may well provide a good opportunity for employers to review their policies in this area to ensure that they are compliant with the law.

Alistair Sloan

If you would like advice on a matter concerning data protection or privacy, then you can contact our Alistair Sloan on 0345 450 0123 or by completing the contact page on this blog.  Alternatively, you can send him an E-mail directly.

Welcome to the Information Law Blog by Inksters Solicitors

Welcome to the Information Law Blog from Inksters Solicitors.  On this blog we will be covering the latest issues in the areas of Data Protection/Privacy and also Freedom of Information.  Most of the contributions to this blog will be by Alistair Sloan, although there may be contributions from other members of the Inksters team from time to time.

Alistair is one our solicitors based in our Glasgow HQ; he offers legal services throughout Scotland in the field of information law, among others.   Alistair regulalry travels around Scotland and in particular visits our Caithness base in Wick on a frequent basis.  Alistair has been involved in the fields of freedom of information and data protection for a number of years, including prior to qualifying as a solicitor, and has built up a knowledge base on both areas throughout that time.  While studying for his Master of Laws degree, he researched the Information Commissioner’s use of Monetary Penalty Notices for breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998.

The area of information law is constantly developing.  The biggest change on the horizon is the General Data Protection Regulation, which will be applicable in the UK (and across the rest of the European Union) from 25 May 2018.  This new Regulation from the European Union represents the single biggest change to the laws relating to data protection and privacy in the UK in more than 20 years.

Much of the field of Information law is governed by EU law in one way or another, whether it be data protection or access to environmental information held by public authorities; therefore, the hot political subject of Brexit will feature heavily in the information law field over the coming years.

We’re not new to the world of information law; in 2016 our Sylvia MacLennan acted for the successful Petitioner in WF v Scottish Ministers.  This case challenged the position in Scotland where an accused person could seek access to the medical records of a complainer in a criminal case, but that the complainer was said not to have any standing to make representations directly to the court (including through their own solicitor) on the question of whether their medical records should be disclosed to the accused.  It also challenged the lack of availability of legal aid in Scotland to complainers concerning such issues.

We hope that this blog will become a useful resource for individuals to find out about the latest developments in the field of information law.  To keep up to date with this blog and what we are doing you can follow Alistair on twitter here; we also have a dedicated information law twitter account, which you can follow as well.

If you want to discuss an information law matter with Alistair you contact him on 0345 450 0123 or by completing the form on the contact page of this blog.  Alternatively, you can send him an E-mail directly.