‘Transparency and openness for local authorities does not just mean disclosing information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoI). Section 3 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 gives the secretary of state the power to issue a code of practice about the publication of information by local authorities relating to the discharge of their functions.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 13th April 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Department of Health v. Information Commissioner et al [2015] UKUT 159, 30 March 2015, Charles J read judgment Simon Lewis requested that the Department of Health supply him with copies of the ministerial diary of Andrew Lansley from May 2010 until April 2011, via a Freedom of Information request. Mr Lewis’s interest in all this is not revealed in the judgment, but I dare say included seeing whether the Minister was being lobbied by private companies eager to muscle in on the NHS in this critical period. But such is the nature of FOIA litigation that it does not really look at the motive of the requester – and this case does not tell us what the diary showed. Indeed by the time of this appeal, Lewis was untraceable, and the burden of the argument in favour of disclosure was taken up by the Information Commissioner.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th April 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The universities admissions service, Ucas, broke data protection rules when it signed up teenagers to receive adverts about mobile phones, energy drinks and other products, the information commissioner has ruled.’
The Guardian, 8th April 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A claim for misuse of private information should be categorised as a tort for the purposes of service of proceedings out of the jurisdiction.’
WLR Daily, 18th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Well, isn’t this an exciting week (and I don’t mean Zayn leaving One Direction)? First, Evans and now Vidal-Hall. We only need Dransfield to appear before Easter and there will be a full red bus analogy. Robin opened yesterday’s analysis of Evans by remarking on the sexiness of FOIA. If there is one thing you learn quickly as an information law practitioner, it is not to engage in a sexiness battle with Robin Hopkins. But high-profile though Evans is, the judgment in Vidal-Hall will be of far wider significance to anyone having to actually work in the field, rather than simply tuning every now and then to see the Supreme Court say something constitutional against a FOIA background. Vidal-Hall might not be the immediate head-turner, but it is probably going to be the life-changer for most of us. So, while still in the ‘friend zone’ with the Court of Appeal, before it all gets serious, it is important to explain what Vidal-Hall v Google [2015] EWCA Civ 311 does.’
Panopticon, 27th March 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘Google has failed in its attempt in the court of appeal to prevent British consumers having the right to sue the internet firm in the UK.’
The Guardian, 27th March 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Supreme Court, 4th March 2015
‘Home Secretary’s announces range of measures in response to police bail consultation.’
Home Office, 23rd March 2015
Source: www.gov.uk/home-office
‘In 1980, personal computers were still in their infancy, and the internet did not exist. There were, of course, genuine concerns about threats to our privacy, but, looking back at my book of that year, they mostly revolved around telephone tapping, surveillance, and unwanted press intrusion. Data protection legislation was embryonic, and the concept of privacy as a human right was little more than a chimera.’
OUP Blog, 20th March 2015
Source: http://blog.oup.com
‘The UK uses the most tracking cookies of any EU country. How should you be protecting your privacy online?’
The Guardian, 19th March 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘This paper covers key information rights cases in 2014. The breadth of issues covered below, from legal professional privilege, human rights to vexatious requests, demonstrates the overlap between information law and many other areas of public law. This paper is intended to provide guidance, even for those who are not steeped, day-to-day, in the workings of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) and the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”), on the practical implications of these developments.’
Full story (PDF)
Thirty Nine Essex Street, February 2015
Source: www.39essex.com
‘The purpose of this paper is to provide an introduction to monetary penalty notices. The law is complex and you cannot assume that the ICO has got it right, even though they have published guidance for themselves to follow.’
Full story (PDF)
Thirty Nine Essex Street, February 2015
Source: www.39essex.com
Kololo v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 600 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 111
‘A data subject access request made pursuant to section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for the purpose of verifying the accuracy of the data held about the subject with a view to employing such data in foreign criminal appeal proceedings was not an abuse of process. In such circumstances, there was nothing to indicate that the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 was the sole procedure by which evidence for use in foreign criminal proceedings could be obtained.’
WLR Daily, 9th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The Catt and T cases are both concerned with this important question: to what extent may the police lawfully retain records relating to individuals who have not in fact been arrested or charged in connection with any criminal offence. The Supreme Court has now had its say on this question – see the judgment here.’
Panopticon, 11th March 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘In a decision handed down last week, the Supreme Court has decided that the police were entitled to retain personal data regarding a 91 year-old peace activist and a woman who got into a minor dispute with a neighbour, even though in both cases the individuals’ article 8 rights to privacy were engaged.’
RPC Privacy Law, 9th March 2015
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘It is not uncommon for data controllers to be faced with subject access requests under s. 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 the motivations for which appear to have nothing whatever to do with the purposes of the DPA. The DPA seeks to protect individuals’ privacy rights with respect to data which is processed about them. The subject access provisions help people check up on that data and its processing (see for example YS v Minister voor Immigratie (Cases C-141/12 & C-372/12)). In practice, however, a subject access request is a fishing expedition with an eye on prospective litigation.’
Panopticon, 10th March 2015
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
‘R (Catt) and R (T) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] UKSC 9. A majority of the Supreme Court has held that the retention by police of information on the Domestic Extremism Database about a 91 year-old activist’s presence at political protests was (1) in accordance with the law and (2) a proportionate interference with his right to a private life under Article 8(1) of the ECHR.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 6th March 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2024