The impact of digitalisation on the immigration process – EIN Blog

‘The coronavirus pandemic created an impetus for the legal world to finally begin accepting digitalisation of processes, moving away from the traditional paper process to an online version. The immigration process is already faced with a myriad of concerns which leaves the applicant in a weak position, and most often, with a lack of funds to cover their costs. The Home Office’s inability to train and effectively manage applications, outsource services to dubious third-party contractors has been exacerbated further by the haphazard application of online processes which do not match the needs of the immigration process. Despite the fact that online applications are easier to complete for legal representatives a number of issues have arisen as a result of this sudden change.’

Full Story

EIN Blog, 21st September 2020

Source: www.ein.org.uk

Data protection representative actions consultation opened – OUT-LAW.com

‘The UK government is considering whether to allow non-profit organisations to make data protection regulatory complaints and bring court claims on behalf of individuals without their consent.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 14th September 2020

Source: www.pinsentmasons.com

Ensuring the lawfulness of automated facial recognition surveillance in the UK – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘In R(Bridges) v South Wales Police, the England and Wales Court of Appeal reviewed the lawfulness of the use of live automated facial recognition technology (‘AFR’) by the South Wales Police Force. CCTV camera­­s capture images of the public, which are then compared with digital images of persons on a watchlist.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 3rd September 2020

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Policing Our Privacy – Where Does the Law Lie? – 39 Essex Chambers

‘Last Tuesday the Court of Appeal (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD and Singh LJ) allowed the appeal of the civil liberties campaigner, Edward Bridges, against the decision of the Divisional Court which had dismissed his claim for judicial review of South Wales Police Force’s use of live automated facial recognition technology (“AFR”).’

Full Story

39 Essex Chambers, 17th August 2020

Source: www.39essex.com

Facial Recognition Technology not “In Accordance with Law” – UK Human Rights Blog

‘The Court of Appeal, overturning a Divisional Court decision, has found the use of a facial recognition surveillance tool used by South Wales Police to be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case was brought by Liberty on behalf of privacy and civil liberties campaigner Ed Bridges. The appeal was upheld on the basis that the interference with Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees a right to privacy and family life, was not “in accordance with law” due to an insufficient legal framework. However, the court found that, had it been in accordance with law, the interference caused by the use of facial recognition technology would not have been disproportionate to the goal of preventing crime. The court also found that Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) was deficient, and that the South Wales Police (SWP), who operated the technology, had not fulfilled their Public Sector Equality Duty.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 13th August 2020

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Police’s Automated Facial Recognition Deployments Ruled Unlawful by the Court of Appeal – Doughty Street Chambers

‘R. (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 [2020] 8 WLUK 64 is thought to be the first case in the world to consider the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies. In this short article, we explore the judgment and its implications for the deployment of these and similar technologies in future.’

Full Story

Doughty Street Chambers, 12th August 2020

Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk

Let’s face it: use of automated facial recognition technology by the police – UK Police Law Blog

‘The case of R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police & Information Commissioner [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 (handed down on 11 August 2020) was an appeal from what is said to have been the first claim brought before a court anywhere on planet earth concerning the use by police of automated facial recognition (“AFR”) technology. There could be nothing wrong with posting scores of police officers with eidetic memories to look out for up to a 800 wanted persons at public gatherings. So why not use a powerful computer, capable of matching 50 faces a second with a database of (under) 800 suspects, to do this job much more cheaply and instantaneously, flagging any matches to a human operator for final assessment? According to the Court of Appeal in Bridges, this system constitutes an interference with Article 8 rights which is not such as is in accordance with the law, but which (critically) would be proportionate if a sufficiently narrow local policy were framed.’

Full Story

UK Police Law Blog, 11th August 2020

Source: ukpolicelawblog.com

South Wales police lose landmark facial recognition case – The Guardian

‘Campaigners are calling for South Wales police and other forces to stop using facial recognition technology after the court of appeal ruled that its use breached privacy rights and broke equalities law.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 11th August 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

My Data Went to the Caribbean. Jamaica? No, It Went of its Own Accord – Panopticon

Posted August 11th, 2020 in appeals, data protection, deportation, human rights, immigration, news by sally

‘You have to admire the ingenuity of lawyers. Who would have thought that the GDPR could be a tool to try and force the Home Office to allow a deported overstayer with a lengthy criminal record back into the UK to conduct an in-person appeal? Not the Court of Appeal for a start in Johnson v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1032.’

Full Story

Panopticon, 11th August 2020

Source: panopticonblog.com

Newman v Southampton CC: child, mother, journalist – whose rights win out? – Panopticon

‘The High Court handed down judgment on Friday in Newman v Southampton City Council & Ors [2020] EWHC 2103 (Fam), the first recorded judgment concerning journalistic access to the court file in public law family proceedings. The case is likely to be of interest to media lawyers generally, and throws up potential complications surrounding the scope and extent of the privacy rights of children vis-à-vis their parents.’

Full Story

Panopticon, 7th August 2020

Source: panopticonblog.com

British trafficking victim sues Priti Patel alleging abuse of personal data – The Guardian

‘A British victim of trafficking is bringing a case against the home secretary, Priti Patel, arguing that her department unlawfully accessed personal information including details of her intimate thoughts.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 30th July 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Misuse of Private Information: A Tort in its Infancy – Pump Court Chambers

‘There has been an avalanche of commentary on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in WM Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 12. The case has provided some welcome guidance on vicarious liability in the wake of the earlier decision of Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11, and also represents the first class action of its kind in the UK.’

Full Story

Pump Court Chambers, 23rd July 2020

Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com

Upper Tribunal judge suggests review “long overdue” of appellate mechanisms for Data Protection Act rights – Local Government Lawyer

Posted July 28th, 2020 in appeals, data protection, news, time limits by sally

‘A comprehensive strategic review of the various appellate mechanisms for rights exercisable under the Data Protection Act is “arguably long overdue”, an Upper Tribunal judge has said.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 27th July 2020

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Government admits breaking privacy law with NHS test and trace – The Guardian

‘The UK government broke the law in rolling out its test-and-trace programme without a full assessment of the privacy implications, the Department of Health and Social Care has admitted after a legal challenge.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 20th July 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Defamation Trumps Data Protection? Steele Yourselves! – Panopticon

Posted July 21st, 2020 in chambers articles, data protection, defamation, news by sally

‘It is a common trope of media lawyers that defamation claims have been on the wane since the Defamation Act 2013, and that data protection law might be the way to fill the gap. (We at Panopticon scorn such arriviste tendencies.) And in Warby J, there is a willing champion of alignment of legal principles between defamation and data protection. He particularly emphasised the read-across in the context of complaints of inaccurate data processing in NT1 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB) (see here) and he has done so again in his very interesting judgment in Aven v Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd [2020] EWHC 1812 (QB).’

Full Story

Panopticon, 20th July 2020

Source: panopticonblog.com

Uber drivers to launch legal bid to uncover app’s algorithm – The Guardian

‘Minicab drivers will launch a legal bid to uncover secret computer algorithms used by Uber to manage their work in a test case that could increase transparency for millions of gig economy workers across Europe.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 20th July 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Pubs, Pandemics and Privacy: 5 Things You Need To Know – Each Other

Posted July 9th, 2020 in coronavirus, data protection, human rights, licensing, news, privacy by sally

‘Hundreds of pubs across England have reopened their doors after months of lockdown – with a handful having to close again after punters reported testing positive for Covid-19.’

Full Story

Each Other, 8th July 2020

Source: eachother.org.uk

FOIA Appeals and Enforcement: Who has the Power? – Panopticon

‘When the First-tier Tribunal decides an information rights appeal and finds in favour of the requestor, who has the responsibility for enforcing any non-compliance with that judgment? Is it the FTT, or is the Information Commissioner? In an interesting judgment of Judge Jacobs in Moss v Information Commissioner & Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames [2020] UKUT 174 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal has held that it is the FTT.’

Full Story

Panopticon, 2nd July 2020

Source: panopticonblog.com

Solicitor “should not have served claim by post” after lockdown – Litigation Futures

‘A solicitor who served proceedings on a council by post two days after lockdown had gone into effect showed “poor judgement”, a High Court judge has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 29th June 2020

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Obligations in relation to electronic records and devices: fresh guidance from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) – Park Square Barristers

‘Two otherwise unrelated cases were listed together to provide the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), headed by the Vice – President Lord Justice Fulford, with an opportunity to consider various issues relating to the retention, inspection, copying, disclosure and deletion of the electronic records held by prosecution witnesses.’

Full Story

Park Square Barristers, 26th June 2020

Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk