‘Oscar Davies discusses the recent Privacy International case and its wider implications, in which the CJEU held that UK law went too far in permitting “general and indiscriminate” access of bulk communications data to MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.’
Lamb Chambers, October 2020
Source: www.lambchambers.co.uk
‘The question the court had to decide recently was what was the test to be applied by the court in those cases where the parties had agreed to arbitration, but one party was dissatisfied with the award?’
Transparency Project, 26th October 2020
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
“Sir Elton John and his ex-wife, Renate Blauel, have settled a legal case brought after details of the marriage were featured in the singer’s memoir and biopic.”
The Guardian, 14th October 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Samantha Smith looks at how organisations can handle the data protection challenges of remote working.’
Local Government Lawyer, 2nd October 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A teacher who spoke out about alleged “overgrading” of pupils’ work has been cleared of snooping on her colleagues’ emails.’
BBC News, 29th September 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘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.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 3rd September 2020
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘A man has been sentenced for filming a naked woman in a hotel room while she was unconscious, following her five-year campaign for justice.’
BBC News, 4th September 2020
Source: www.bbc.com
‘In this post, Joanna Clark and Emma Ainsley of CMS discuss the judgment handed down by the UK Supreme Court on 15 July 2020 in a referral from the High Court of Justiciary, the Scottish criminal appeal court, in the matter of Sutherland v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2020] UKSC 32 concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained by so-called “paedophile hunter” groups in criminal trials.’
UKSC Blog, 1st September 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘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”).’
39 Essex Chambers, 17th August 2020
Source: www.39essex.com
‘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.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 13th August 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘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.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 12th August 2020
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘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.’
UK Police Law Blog, 11th August 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘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.’
The Guardian, 11th August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
Panopticon, 7th August 2020
Source: panopticonblog.com
‘The Duchess of Sussex has won a high court bid to keep secret the identities of five friends who gave anonymous interviews to a US celebrity magazine, in the latest stage of her legal action against the owner of the Mail on Sunday.’
The Guardian, 5th August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
The Guardian, 30th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
Pump Court Chambers, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘In Sutherland v Her Majesty’s Advocate, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it was compatible with the accused person’s rights under ECHR article 8 to use evidence obtained by “paedophile hunter” (“PH”) groups in a criminal trial.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st July 2020
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘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.’
The Guardian, 20th July 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024