‘The NHS contact-tracing app must not be rolled out across the UK until the government has increased privacy and data protections, an influential parliamentary committee has said, as rights groups warn that the current trial is unlawful under the Data Protection Act.’
The Guardian, 7th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Coronavirus presents a serious threat to society, legitimising the collection of public health data under Article 9:2 (g) of GDPR regulations, which allows the processing of such data if “necessary for reasons of substantial public interest”. Some of this collection will take the form of contact tracing apps, which have been used in containing the spread of coronavirus in countries such as Singapore.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st May 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘ Today the Joint Committee on Human Rights will take evidence from the Information Commissioner, academics and the CEO of NHSX on the risks to the right to privacy (Article 8 ECHR) if a contact tracing app is introduced to track and slow the spread of the coronavirus. This is helpful scrutiny of the government’s plans. Yet if the government goes ahead with its proposed contact-tracing application it is essential that the processing of large amounts of personal data by the state, even if done in the public interest, needs a clear legal basis in the form of specific legislation.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 4th May 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Mail on Sunday has won the first round of a legal battle against the Duchess of Sussex over the publication of a letter she wrote to her father.’
BBC News, 1st May 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The European Court of Human Rights court held in Gaughran v United Kingdom [2020] ECHR 144 that the police’s indefinite retention of DNA profile, fingerprints and photographs of person convicted of a minor offence without a possibility of review constituted an infringement of Article 8 ECHR (respect for private life). This is the latest in a number of cases where the ECtHR has disagreed with a decision of the Supreme Court and represents a further development of the meaning of “private life”.’
UK Police Law Blog, 30th April 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘With the UK’s coronavirus lockdown extended for three more weeks, some people are looking towards a planned NHS phone app as “holding the key” to easing restrictions. But how realistic is this expectation and could there be unexpected consequences? EachOther examines.’
Each Other, 16th April 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘The Information Commissioner’s Office has issued a statement setting out its regulatory approach during the coronavirus pandemic, saying it will focus on those areas likely to cause the greatest public harm.’
Local Government Lawyer, 16th April 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The UK’s privacy watchdog has said the government can use personal data from people’s mobile phones to track and monitor behaviour if it helps fight the spread of coronavirus.’
The Guardian, 27th March 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A police force has defended using a drone camera to shame people into not driving into a national park during the lockdown, while another force said it was introducing roadblocks to stop drivers heading to tourist hotspots.’
The Guardian, 26th March 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The powers in the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Business Closure) (England) Regulations 2020 allow a constable to “take such action as is necessary to enforce a premises closure or restriction”. The powers in theCoronavirus Act 2020, schedule 22 (formerly schedule 21 in the Bill) are to enforce a restriction or prohibition on gatherings or events and to close and restrict access to premises during a public health response period. Again, it will allow a constable to “take such action as is necessary to enforce such a restriction, prohibition or closure”. But what does the phrase, “take such action as is necessary to enforce …” mean?’
UK Police Law Blog, 25th March 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘There was no cause of action that existed in respect of a private nuisance for overlooking. The instant case was more akin to an invasion of privacy rather than nuisance, and Parliament should be the body to legislate that area rather than the Courts.’
Tanfield Chambers, 25th February 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Helen Crowell, Pupil Barrister and Shaun Spencer, Barrister, of St Johns Buildings discuss Deprivation of Liberty and the Children’s Home Regulations 2015.’
Family Law Week, 12th March 2020
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
‘A campaigner who wants passports to include a category for those who do not identify as male or female has lost a Court of Appeal challenge over gender neutral passports.’
The Independent, 10th March 2020
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘In this latest Environmental Law News Update, Charles Morgan, Gordon Wignall and Natasha Hausdorff consider recent flooding events in the UK, the Tate Gallery viewing platform case and the rise in fly-tipping and organised crime.’
Six Pump Court, 19th February 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘The case of R (Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police & Information Commissioner [2019] EWHC 2341 (Admin); [2020] 1 WLR 672 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 Divisional Court in Bridges, this may, depending on the facts of each particular deployment, be lawful.’
UK Police Law Blog, 21st February 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Now is a dangerous time to roll back judicial power, the vice president of the European Court of Human Rights has said in a public rebuff to Lord Sumption’s high profile criticism of ‘law’s expanding empire’.’
Law Society's Gazette, 22nd February 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘This is the latest round of what is becoming the most heavily litigated stretch of air space in London, assorted leaseholders of Neo Bankside against the Tate Modern, over the overlooking of their flats (plate glass walls and all) from the viewing platform on the Tate Modern extension.’
Nearly Legal, 19th February 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024