Tag Archives: Court Decisions (Privacy)

Information Law Review of 2019

Well, it is that time again; the beginning of a New Year and therefore time for my third annual look at what happened in the world of information law in the previous twelve months and what those with an interest in the field should be looking out for in 2020. I would like to begin by wishing all readers of the Information Law Blog, both new and old, a very happy New Year.

My reviews of 2017 and 2018 began by looking at the case of Various Claimants v WM Morrisons Supermarkets Limited. I shall keep the tradition going by looking once again at this case. In 2018, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Morrisons against the decision of Mr Justice Langstaff holding them vicariously liable for the actions of an ex-employee. This case rumbled on again in 2019, with the Supreme Court hearing an appeal by Morrisons on 6th and 7th November. By the end of 2019, the Supreme Court had not yet issued its judgment and so that will be something to look out for in 2020; the Supreme Court’s judgment (although concerned with the Data Protection Act 1998, rather than the GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018) will have ramifications for data subjects and controllers, regardless of which way it goes.

Brexit continued to be a feature of 2019 in the Information law world. We have seen the changes that will take effect in data protection law as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, which is now scheduled to take place at the end of this month. Brexit, however, will not stop being a feature of information law at 23:00 on 31st January (assuming there are no further delays). We will be in a transition period until the end of the year, but we don’t yet know exactly what we’re transitioning to which might start to become clearer by the Summer.

Brexit also featured in the information law world in other respects as well. There are still some data protection and privacy concerns floating around from the 2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. Indirectly related to that have been proceedings in the Upper Tribunal involving UKIP and in also in the First-Tier Tribunal. If reports are anything to go by, proceedings in the First-Tier Tribunal at the end of 2019 could result in an extremely critical decision against the Commissioner, so that is something to look out for in 2020.

We also saw the first GDPR administrative fine issued in the UK by the Information Commissioner (some 19 or so months after the GDPR became applicable and quite a bit behind other regulators in other EU Member States). The Commissioner has issued two Notices of Intent against two other Controllers (that we’re aware of) both of which were due to expire this month, but it has been confirmed by the Information Commissioner that the statutory six month period has been extended by agreement (in accordance with the statutory provisions). The reasons for this have not been made public at this time.

Just before Christmas the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice gave his opinion in Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland & Schrems concerning standard contractual clauses. We can expect a decision from the European Court of Justice to follow soon, whether that is before or after “exit day” at the end of January remains to be seen.

In the wider field of privacy law, the Court of Appeal took a look at the judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in the case involving Channel 5’s fly-on-the-wall documentary ‘Can’t Pay? We’ll Take it Away’. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals by the Respondents in respect of liability and the cross-appeal by the Claimants on the issue of quantum of damages. Meanwhile, in Scotland, Lord Bannatyne (for the first time) declared that there exists in the law of Scotland a common law right to privacy.

In May, Information Notices were again a feature of the decisions flowing from the First-Tier Tribunal; this time, however, it was concerning the Commissioner’s powers under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Tribunal confirmed that the Commissioner can issue an information notice in order to obtain information as part of her process for determining whether a person is a public authority for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

In 2019, the Scottish Parliament’s Public Audit and Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee began undertaking Post-Legislative Scrutiny of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. In 2019, I gave both written and oral [pdf] evidence to the Committee. The Committee is expected to release its report and recommendations next month.

In 2019, we saw the expansion of FOI in Scotland with Registered Social Landlords formally being designated as Scottish public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

We also had one of those rare things: a decision from the Court of Session in an appeal against a decision of the Scottish Information Commissioner. In the sole decision in such an appeal issued by the Court of Session in 2019, my client successfully challenged (on a point of law) a finding by the Commissioner that information he had requested was not held by a local council for the purpose of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. This case provides some useful guidance on determining whether information is held, or not, for the purposes of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Alistair Sloan

If you would like advice or assistance with Privacy and Data Protection matters or with UK and Scottish Freedom of Information requests contact our team on 0141 229 0880.

Privacy, the common law and Scotland

In a recent opinion from Lord Bannatyne (B C and Others v Chief Constable Police Service of Scotland and others [2019] CSOH 48), sitting in the Outer House of the Court of Session, we have the first express statement that there is a right of privacy at common law in Scotland. Traditionally in Scotland, privacy law has been dealt with through the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act and data protection law.

This case involved a number of police officers who are facing disciplinary proceedings by the Police Service of Scotland for alleged misconduct which is founded upon a number of messages sent via WhatsApp. The messages came into the possession of the professional standards department having been discovered on the phone of an officer who was being investigated in connection with alleged sexual offences.

The messages in question were characterised by Senior Counsel for the Police Service of Scotland in her written submissions as being “on any view, blatantly sexist and degrading, racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, mocking of disability” and included “a flagrant disregard for police procedures by posting crime scene photos of current investigations.” [para 166] Lord Bannatyne believed that it was “a characterisation which a reasonable person having regard to the content of the messages would be entitled to reach. I conclude that the content of the messages can be regarded as potentially informing the issue of breach of Standards in circumstances calling into question the impartial discharge of the petitioners’ duties.” [para 166]

In terms of the common law right to privacy, the starting point for Lord Bannatyne was the relationship between the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Common Law. He quoted Lord Reid, with approval, in R (Osborn) v The Parole Board at paragraph 57 of that judgment. From that passage Lord Bannatyne concluded that if the right to privacy exists at common law, Article 8 of the convention does not supersede it. Lord Bannatyne noted that the European jurisprudence could be used to help inform and develop a common law right to privacy.

He then went on to ask whether there was a justification for a right to privacy in the common law. He cited, with approval, the words of Lord Nicholls at paragraph 12 of the judgment in Campbell v MGN Ltd. Lord Bannatyne thought that the right to privacy could “be described as a core value and one which is inherent in a democratic and civilised state.” [para 106]. He continued:

“[it] seems to flow from the centrality of the role of privacy in a democratic society and particularly in a society where electronic storage of information and electronic means of intrusion into the private lives of a citizen by government, private organisations and individuals are growing exponentially the common law should recognise the right to privacy.” [para 107]

Lord Bannatyne considered that the English authority on the point was of assistance. In England and Wales the common law on privacy has been developed in the context of the development of the law on breach of confidence. Scotland also has a concept of breach of confidence, which is a well understood remedy and it has been explicitly accepted previously that the law in Scotland in respect of breach of confidence is the same as the law in respect of breach of confidence in England and Wales (see, for example, Lord Advocate v Scotsman Publications).

At paragraph 116 of his opinion, Lord Bannatyne observed “that given privacy is a fundamental right I think it highly likely that it exists in the common law of Scotland.” He also noted that it was “inherently unlikely” that Scottish and English law in relation to this fundamental matter are entirely different.

Finally, he considered the existing case law in Scotland (to the extent that there is any) tended to support the view that such a right exists in the law of Scotland. He also found it “noteworthy” that none of the cases to which he was referred expressly or implicitly stated that there was no common law right to privacy in Scotland.

Lord Bannatyne went on to consider that the Petitioners could have “no reasonable expectation of privacy” flowing “from the attributes which arise as a result of their position as constables.” [para 166] It is not the case that police officers, as a result of their position, have no right to privacy at all, but, rather, that this right is limited. Lord Bannatyne opines that the limitation can be defined in the following way: “f their behaviour in private can be said to be potentially in breach of the Standards in such a way as to raise doubts regarding the impartial performance of their duties then they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.” [para 168] A police officer, because of the attributes of a person holding the office of constable, is in a different position to an ordinary member of the public. [para 168]

The remaining issues that had to be dealt with by Lord Bannatyne were dealt with in, comparably, fairly short compass. Lord Bannatyne held that “there is a clear and accessible basis for the disclosure [by the police, as a public authority, to the professional standards branch of Police Scotland] in the circumstances of this case.” [para 192] He also held that the disclosure decision was not an arbitrary one. [para 192]

Lord Bannatyne also held the interference was necessary, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Convention. He did not agree that all of the matters listed in Article 8(2) were engaged, but did hold that ‘public safety’ and ‘the prevention and detection of crime’ were engaged. [para 198] In terms of the balancing exercise to be carried out, Lord Bannatyne considered that the balance was“heavily weighted on the side of disclosure” and he was “unable to identify a less intrusive measure which could have been used without unacceptably comprising the objectives [he had] identified.” [para 201]

Finally, in respect of interdict, Lord Bannatyne held that even if he had been with the Petitioners he would nevertheless have held that the Petitioners were not entitled to the interdict which they sought. [para 202]

This is an important case as it is the first time that a Scottish court has expressly declared that there is a common law right to privacy in Scotland. That, however, has to be tempered with the fact that it is a decision of the Outer House and therefore only of persuasive authority in the Court of Session and lower courts. A different Lord Ordinary (or a Sheriff) may ultimately reach a different conclusion (although, I think that unlikely). Although, the Petitioners were right on this point, they ultimately lost the case and the petition was refused. Therefore there may well be a reclaiming motion (appeal) to the Inner House and this point may well be considered and decided upon by the Inner House. This would give us binding authority which all the lower courts in Scotland would be required to follow stating that there is a common law right to privacy in Scotland.

The decision will certainly add an additional tool to the armory of individuals who are concerned about their privacy and breaches thereof; it will also be another angle which those advising on issues of privacy will have to consider. We may begin to see more cases proceed on the basis of a breach of the common law right to privacy as opposed to cases proceeding on breaches of convention rights and data protection law.

Alistair Sloan

If you would like advice in connection with any privacy matter, or any other information law matter; contact our team on 0141 229 0880 or by E-mail. You can also follow our dedicated Information law twitter account.

Privacy v Freedom of Expression in the Court of Appeal

Last year, Mr Justice Arnold gave judgment in the interesting case of Ali & Aslam v Channel 5 Broadcasting. This case concerned the fly-on-the wall programme broadcast on Channel 5 called “Can’t Pay? We’ll take it away”; which follows the work of High Court Enforcement Officers as they enforce court orders relating to debt and housing matters. Mr Justice Arnold found Channel 5 to be liable to the Claimants in the sum of £10,000 each; holding that the Claimant’s rights to privacy outweighed the rights of Channel 5 in respect of freedom of expression and the public interest.

Both parties appealed to the England and Wales Court of Appeal; Channel 5 on the issue of liability and the Claimants on the grounds that the damages awarded were insufficient. In a judgment given on 16th April 2019, the Court of Appeal (Irwin LJ, Newey LJ and Baker LJ) refused both appeals.

The Court of Appeal addressed the issue of liability first, before dealing with the appeal on quantum (the amount of damages awarded). The issue for the Court of Appeal was whether Arnold J had gone beyond what was justified in balancing the Claimants’ rights to privacy against Channel 5’s rights to freedom of expression; and as a consequence had made an error of law. The Court of Appeal held that Arnold J had taken “too narrow a view of what was in the public interest, effectively confining it to the High Court Process.” [74] The Court considered that Arnold J was wrong to conclude “that the publication of each specific piece of information in respect of which the Claimants had a legitimate expectation of privacy had to be justified as a matter of general public interest.” [74]

An interference with privacy which cannot be justified (logically or rationally) by reference to the public interest served by publication cannot be rendered lawful by editorial discretion. However, where there is a rational view by which publication can be justified in the public interest the courts should be slow to interfere, giving full weight to editorial discretion and knowledge.

Despite having some reservations about the treatment of the public interest issues in the judgment from Arnold J (in particular, the narrow approach taken to the public interests issues which arose), the Court refused the cross-appeal by Channel 5. The court had three principal reasons for doing so, set out in paragraphs 92-94 of its judgment. Those can be summarised as follows:

  1. Arnold J was clearly well aware of the relevant legal principles set out in the applicable case law.
  2. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that Arnold J was fully aware of the range of public interest issues raised in the programme; and
  3. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that while another judge might have reasonably found against the Claimants, it was not unreasonable for Arnold J to have found in their favour.

Turning to the appeal on damages, the first ground of appeal advanced essentially amounted to one that the level of damages awarded to each Claimant did not reflect the scale and nature of the publication. The second ground is that the judge was wrong to take into account the publication of the postings by the Ahmeds when setting the awards of damages for the publications by the Defendant. The third ground is that the judge wrongly failed to take into account the impact of the programme on the Claimants’ children.

All three grounds of appeal in respect of quantum were refused by the Court of Appeal. In respect of ground 2, the Court of Appeal noted that “[i]t must be obvious that the distress attributable to the programme was reduced because a number of people within the Claimants’ community or network were already aware of the broad events from the postings”. In respect of ground 3, the Court of Appeal considered that Arnold J had taken into account t he potential impact on the Claimants’ children.

On ground 1, the Court of Appeal distinguished against damages awarded in the case of phone hacking and the present case. They did so on the basis that in t he hacking cases those responsible for the hacking knew full well what they were doing was illegal; however, in the present case Channel 5 had taken steps to ensure that they remained within the law; including obtaining expert legal opinion. Furthermore, in the circumstances it was appropriate for Mr Justice Arnold to make an award of damages in the round.

There is some helpful guidance from the Court of Appeal on the issue of quantum in respect of breaches of privacy in the media sphere. In assessing quantum it is possible to look at issues in the round and reach a global figure of damages, rather than awarding damages identifiable to each issue. Furthermore, damages for cases of this kind cannot be calculated mathematically. Finally, an appellate court should not seek to interfere with an assessment as to quantum unless the damages awarded are so high or so low as to be perverse.

Alistair Sloan

If you would like advice or assistance in connection with a privacy issue, or any other information law matter; contact Alistair Sloan on 0141 229 0880. You can also send him an E-mail.

Information Law Review of 2018

It does not seem as though it was a year ago since I sat down to write my review of Information Law in 2017 and to have a brief look ahead into 2018; but somehow we now appear to be in 2019. It was always going to be the case that 2018 was going to be a big year for information law; with the General Data Protection Regulation becoming applicable on 25th May 2018. The 25th May 2018 came and went without the millennium bug style apocalypse that seemed inevitable from the amount of sensationalist writing that was taking place in late 2017 and early 2018.

My review of 2017 started off with the English and Welsh High Court decision on vicarious liability for data protection breaches in Various Claimants v WM Morrisons Supermarket PLC  [2017] EWHC 3113 (QB). This case rumbled on in 2018 and it was considered by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal and (in remarkably quick time) dismissed the appeal. It is understood that Morrisons have sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and if permission is granted it is possible that it will feature in a review of Information law in 2019.

In February, the English and Welsh High Court issued an interesting privacy judgment when it considered an action for compensation arising out of “Can’t Pay? We’ll Take it Away’; a fly-on-the wall documentary following High Court Enforcement Officers in their work enforcing court orders relating to debt and housing cases. The Court had the tricky job of balancing the privacy rights of individuals against the rights of television companies in respect of freedom of expression; however, the High Court decided that the balance in this particular case fell in favour of the claimant’s privacy rights. The High Court’s decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal; looking specifically at the issue of quantifying the level of damages. That appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in early December and should provide useful guidance on calculating damages in the privacy sphere.

Facebook, Cambridge Analytical and Aggregate AIQ all featured quite heavily in 2018 in terms of privacy and data protection matters. Facebook was served with a monetary penalty in the amount of £500,000 for breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 and Aggregate AIQ was also the recipient of the first Enforcement Notice under the Data Protection Act 2018 (which was narrowed in scope by the Information Commissioner following an appeal by AIQ; which was subsequently dropped). Facebook lodged an appeal against the Monetary Penalty Notice with the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) in November 2018. If and when a decision is reached by the Tribunal in respect of that appeal, it will feature on this blog.

Arising out of the same wide-ranging investigation by the ICO as the Facebook penalty and the AIQ Enforcement Notice was an Information Notice served on the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which was appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by UKIP in July.

In April there was yet another important decision from the English and Welsh High Court in respect of Privacy and Data Protection. A little over four years after the European Court of Justice decision on the Right to Be Forgotten in Google Spain, Mr Justice Warby handed down his judgment in NT1 & NT2 v Google; this represented the first decision of a UK Court in respect of the Right to Be Forgotten. An appeal was lodged in respect of this case and was due to be heard just before Christmas; however, it was reported that the case was settled on the day of the appeal.

The issue of compensation to identifiable third parties in the context of data protection breaches was considered by the English and Welsh Court of Appeal. This case adds to the helpful privacy and data protection case law emanating from the English and Welsh courts.

Another interesting development that we saw during the course of 2018 was a director being disqualified indirectly in connection with privacy and data protection matters. It does show that directors can be held personally liable for privacy and data protection transgressions of limited companies. This was underlined by the amendments to the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 which now enable the Commissioner to serve a monetary penalty on directors (and others associated with companies) in certain circumstances.

In Scotland, the Court of Session made new rules which should make appealing decisions of the Scottish Information Commissioner in respect of requests for environmental information more financially viable.

Litigation in respect information law matters in Scotland remains limited. The majority of litigation on these areas arises out of England and Wales. Perhaps in 2019, we will begin to see more litigation in Scotland on information law matters. Hopefully the new rules in the Court of Session will see more appeals in respect of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and hopefully the introduction of Group proceedings in the Court of Session through the Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Act 2018 will help with an increase in data protection and privacy litigation in Scotland.

In terms of 2018 Scottish cases, not long before Christmas the Court of Session treated us to a judgment in an appeal concerning vexatious requests under the Freedom of Information Scotland Act 2002. Beggs v Scottish Information Commissioner considered the correct approach to be taken when applying section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Looking ahead to 2019; the big issue on the horizon is Brexit. Much of what is discussed on this blog as “information law” derives from European law and so Brexit will likely have an impact upon that. We are still unsure as to the terms that we will be leaving on. A withdrawal Agreement has been negotiated between the European Union and the United Kingdom; however, there is  still a way to go with that – and it looks quite likely that the UK Parliament will rejected the Withdrawal Agreement in its current form. If we end up leaving with no Withdrawal Agreement in place then this will cause considerable difficulties for UK business which rely upon the transfer of personal data from elsewhere within the European Union; it will also cause problems for public bodies.

In terms of making the law work after Brexit, we were treated by the Government (in between Christmas and New Year) to a draft of The Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. These Regulations will make changes to the GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 in light of the United Kingdom no longer being a member of the European Union. I will, of course, look at these draft Regulations in more detail soon.

I will attempt to address information law matters as they unfold in 2019 on the Information Law Blog from Inksters Solicitors.

Alistair Sloan

If you would like advice or assistance with Privacy and Data Protection matters or with UK and Scottish Freedom of Information requests contact Alistair Sloan on 0141 229 0880 or you can E-mail him.


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.