‘A committee of MPs has condemned police for continuing to upload custody photographs, including of people never charged, to a face recognition database, despite a high court judgement that ruled the practice was unlawful.’
The Guardian, 7th March 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Another of my articles has considered s56 of the Data Protection Act, which makes it an offence for an employer to compel a current or prospective employee to make a data subject access request. These subject access requests can reveal an individual’s spent criminal convictions as well as other sensitive personal information, and are therefore highly invasive and potentially highly prejudicial to an individual’s employment prospects.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 3rd March 2015
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Under Section 56 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), it will soon be a criminal offence for an employer or other third party to require a data subject to supply records obtained through a subject access request. An employer, or a supplier of goods and services, cannot therefore make employment or provision of goods and services conditional on a data subject making a subject access request and providing their records.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 26th February 2015
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘A groundbreaking scheme that allows women to discover if their partner has a history of violence has been hailed a success after figures showed that more than 1,300 such warnings have been issued in less than a year.’
The Independent, 26th January 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Dealers who sell drugs outside schools are being let off with a “slap on the wrist” by police instead of facing prosecution, the magistrates’ leader has warned.’
Daily Telegraph, 6th January 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Biometrics commissioner warns privacy laws meant to protect innocent could also guard those committing offences abroad.’
The Guardian, 16th December 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Football League finally got their man. But is it too late? Will Massimo Cellino and Leeds United yet sail off into the clear blue sea?’
Sports Law Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 3rd December 2014
Source: www.sportslawbulletin.org
Cartiera dell’Adda SpA v CEM Ambiente SpA (Case C-42/13) EU:C:2014:2345; [2014] WLR (D) 468
‘Article 45 of Parliament and Council Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 on the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1177/2009 of 30 November 2009), read in conjunction with article 2 of the Directive, and the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency did not preclude the exclusion of an economic operator from a procurement procedure on the ground that the operator had failed to comply with the requirement laid down in the contract documentation to annex to his bid, on pain of exclusion, a statement that the person designated as the operator’s technical director had not been the subject of criminal proceedings or a conviction, even where, at a date after the expiry of the deadline for submitting bids, such a statement had been provided to the contracting authority or it was shown that the person in question was identified as the technical director in error.’
WLR Daily, 6th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Mehmedov [2014] EWCA Crim 1523; [2014] WLR (D) 325
‘A certificate of a conviction in a member state of the European Union was admissible in evidence under section 73(1) of the Police and Criminal Act 1984 even where the conviction preceded the accession of the member state concerned to the European Union.’
WLR Daily, 18th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A family who endured a “living nightmare” at the hands of a stalker are to receive £130,000 because of Home Office failings.
BBC News, 8th July 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A family who endured a “living nightmare” at the hands of a violent criminal is to receive a £130,000 payout over Home Office failings.’
BBC News, 8th July 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Requiring applicants for those jobs which require enhanced criminal record checks to disclose all spent convictions no matter how historic or minor is an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with their human rights, the UK’s Supreme Court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 25th June 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The provisions in Part V of the Police Act for the automatic release of a person’s convictions, cautions and warnings— regardless of their relevance or the length of time that had elapsed— when that person was required, by reason of articles 3 or 4 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, to obtain and disclose an enhanced criminal record certificate for the purpose of obtaining employment or some other position which involved working with children or other vulnerable groups of persons, did not meet the requirement of legality for the purposes of article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and so was incompatible with the person’s right to respect for their private life guaranteed by that article. Moreover, the provisions contravened article 8 in that they were not “necessary in a democratic society”, as required by article 8.2.’
WLR Daily, 18th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The number of people who have committed child sex offences and have been barred from working with children has fallen by nearly 10,000 over the past three years, according to freedom of information disclosures.’
The Guardian, 24th June 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘As readers of this blog will know, the application of the Government’s criminal records scheme has been subject to extensive litigation of late (see further not least my post on an appeal involving a teacher and my post on an appeal involving a taxi-driver). Perhaps most importantly, in the case of T & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department, questions have been raised about whether the scheme as a whole is compatible with Convention rights and, in particular, the Article 8 right to privacy. Last year, the Court of Appeal concluded that the scheme was incompatible. In a judgment given yesterday, the majority of the Supreme Court has agreed with that conclusion (Lord Wilson dissenting).’
Panopticon, 19th June 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously declared that government rules regarding the disclosure of spent convictions are unlawful and incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 18th June 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court, 18th June 2014
‘The Supreme Court is today due to rule whether job applicants should be forced to disclose all convictions to certain potential employers.’
The Independent, 18th June 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024