“Lawyers were the biggest users of the private investigators behind the ‘secret’ phone-hacking scandal, it has been revealed.”
Daily Telegraph, 26th July 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The Press Complaints Commission has dismissed complaints from Liberal Democrat MP Chris Huhne and his partner Carina Trimingham levelled against five national newspapers over photographs of the pair at Leyhill prison.”
The Guardian, 18th July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The court would only depart from open justice if strictly necessary. An application to depart from the principle of open justice would fall to be decided by reference to established principles, whether the proceedings were at an interim or final stage. A significant erosion of the open justice principle could not be justified where adequate protection existed in the form of vindication of the innocent through the judicial process to trial. The public airing of allegations which might embarrass a litigant was not a good reason to close the doors of the court.”
WLR Daily, 10th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina (Sturnham) v Parole Board and another (No 2): [2013] UKSC 47; [2013] WLR (D) 274
“The statutory provisions relating to sentences of imprisonment for public protection involved a higher threshold for the imposition of such sentences than for continued detention after the expiry of a prisoner’s minimum term.”
WLR Daily, 3rd July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The tension between transparency and individual privacy is part of what makes information rights such a fascinating and important area. When it comes to high-public interest issues involving particular individuals, prevailing wisdom has tended to be something like this: say as much as possible on an open basis, but redact and anonymise so as to protect the identity of the individuals involved. Increasingly, however, transparency is outmuscling privacy. See for example my post about the Tribunal’s order of disclosure, in the FOIA context, of the details of the compensation package of a Chief Executive of an NHS Trust (the case of Dicker v IC (EA/2012/0250).”
Panopticon, 11th July 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
Supreme Court, 3rd July 2013
“The Upper Tribunal has handed down two decisions on Iraq and section 27 FOIA, which raise some interesting procedural points – FCO v Information Commissioner and Plowden GIA/2474/2012 and Cabinet Office and Information Commissioner v Muttitt GIA/0957/2012.”
Panopticon, 2nd July 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“As a lawyer acting for whistleblowers, I have been struck by the common message emerging from the public inquiries into scandals across very different sectors.”
The Independent, 3rd July 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Sky has avoided regulatory action over its admission that it hacked into emails belonging to a man who faked his own death and those belonging to his wife.”
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd July 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“BSkyB has been cleared of breaking the broadcasting code for hacking the emails belonging to John Darwin, the ‘canoe man’ accused of faking his own death, following an investigation by Ofcom.”
The Guardian, 1st July 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“In the wake of the Edward Snowden disclosures, some fear that changes to UK whistleblowing laws could discourage those here wanting to spill the beans.”
The Guardian, 25th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Prosecutors should be mindful of observing individuals’ rights to free speech when deciding whether to initiate legal action against them over grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false comments made on social media, according to new guidelines.”
OUT-LAW.com, 21st June 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Home owners have been warned that they could face prosecution if their dog scares a child that strays into their garden to retrieve a football.”
Daily Telegraph, 24th June 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The first Biometrics Commissioner, Mr Alastair MacGregor QC, has issued a consultation paper asking for views about how he should act in relation to the retention and use of biometric material obtained from persons who have been arrested but not charged.”
Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 15th June 2013
Source: www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk
“These are the latest in a series of freedom of information requests for disclosure of material from the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). These requests arose following the ‘climategate’ affair where hacked university emails suggested that individuals within CRU might have attempted to abuse the process of peer review to prevent publication of opposing research papers and evidence. Hence the sensitivity of the data to both requester and CRU, and the passions engendered on these appeals.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, has intervened in the debate over so-called secret arrests and said police should confirm the name of a suspect if they have been correctly identified by the media.”
The Guardian, 4th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Charities should be forced to rein in the use of High Street fund-raisers known as ‘chuggers’ or face state regulation, a cross-party committee of MPs has concluded.”
Daily Telegraph, 6th June 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“A former Metropolitan police officer who had access to private information about wealthy Chelsea residents including the Duchess of Cambridge and Tetra Pak heir Hans Rausing has been jailed for two years for selling stories about them to the Sun.”
The Guardian, 5th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Reporting restrictions on proceedings concerning a life prisoner should be discharged since the public interest in allowing media organisations to publish reports outweighed the prisoner’s human rights.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“The enactment of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (“PIDA”) was designed to introduce important protection for those blowing the whistle to draw attention to wrongdoing discovered in the workplace. During the passage of the Bill in the House of Lords, Lord Nolan commended those behind it ‘for so skilfully achieving the essential but delicate balance in this measure between the public interest and the interests of employers’. Fifteen years on, the verdict is less effusive. Significant gaps had been identified in the legislation, for example in failing to impose vicarious liability on employers for acts of victimisation carried out by their employees or agents. In other respects, however, PIDA has come to be seen a blunt instrument, enabling disgruntled employees to seek unlimited compensation despite having done nothing to further the public interest.”
Full story (PDF)
11 KBW, 22nd May 2013
Source: www.11kbw.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024