Category Archives: human rights

May 27, 2025 · 7:42 am

Liz Truss leadership election not amenable to JR

Was the leadership election in which Liz Truss was elected as leader of the Conservative Party (and as a result of which she was recommended to the Queen by the outgoing Boris Johnson, and appointed by the Queen as her Prime Minister) a decision amenable to judicial review?

Whether a person is a public authority for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is, in principle, a relatively straightforward issue: is it listed in Schedule 1 to FOIA?; or has it been designated as such by order under section 5?; or is it wholly owned by the public sector?

Whether a person is a public authority under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, or whether a person is a public authority amenable to judicial review, are more complex questions.

It was the last of these that the Court of Appeal had primarily to consider in Tortoise Media Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Conservative and Unionist Party [2025] EWCA Civ 673. Tortoise Media had written to the Party seeking certain information in relation to the leadership election process, and argued that the public effects of the leadership election meant that, in those circumstances, the Party was exercising a public function for the purposes of CPR 54.1(2). The follow-on argument was that the judgment of the ECtHR in Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary meant that the domestic courts should read down Article 10 of the ECHR (as incorporated in domestic law in the HRA) as imposing, in some cases, a positive obligation on a body to provide information to the media, who act as “watchdogs” in the public interest.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, though, the Court of Appeal did not accept that the effects and circumstances of the Party leadership election made the decision of the Party amenable to JR:

the nature of the act of electing a party leader…is at all times a private act. The fact that it has important, indirect consequences for the public does not transform a private act into a public one.

For that reason, the Court did not need to consider the Article 10/Magyar arguments (but on which, one feels – having regard to the submissions on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, as intervener, which argued that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sugar and in Kennedy (which did not follow the reasoning in Magyar) bound all inferior courts – the claimants would have in any case lost).

It’s an interesting read, even if it was – to put it mildly – an ambitious case to bring.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under access to information, Article 10, Freedom of Information, human rights, judgments, judicial review

Tagged as ,

November 1, 2024 · 5:44 am

Dismissed FE teacher’s data protection, MOPI, HRA claims fail

[reposted from LinkedIn]

Claims in misuse of private information, data protection and for breach of the Human Rights Act, by a dismissed further education teacher against Tameside College and three employees are struck out/subject to summary judgment for the defendant.

The claimant was initially suspended after evidence came to light that he had been dismissed from previous roles. The College’s investigation involved the sending of reference requests to two previous employers, and was also informed by disclosures of Facebook and WhatsApp messages which revealed the teacher had, contrary to instruction, communicated with students on social media whilst suspended, and “sent a threatening message to a WhatsApp Group chat comprising members of staff”.

The deputy master found that in relation to the misuse of private information claims, although the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the social media messages, “those expectations were greatly outweighed by the need to investigate those messages for the purposes of the disciplinary process”. These were subject to summary judgment for the defendant.

The data protection and human rights claims against individual employees were bound to fail, as they were neither data controllers nor public authorities.

As to the data protection claim against the college, a previous determination by the ICO that the sending of the reference requests was not fair and transparent, because it was contrary to the claimant’s expectations, was wrong: it was “plain that it ought to have been well within the Claimant’s reasonable expectation that, in order to investigate whether he had failed to disclose the fact of his dismissal from those two institutions, each would be contacted and asked about it.”

The college’s processing was lawful under Article 6(1)(b) and (c) of the UK GDPR: “The processing was necessary for the purposes of the contract of employment between the [college] and the Claimant and for the performance of the [college’s] obligations to its other staff, and to safeguard and promote the welfare of its students.” The various safeguarding legal duties and obligations on the college established a clear legal basis for the processing.

Similarly, the human rights claims against the college, which included complaints of unlawful monitoring and surveillance, were bound to fail: “There is no real prospect of establishing a breach of Article 8 for the same reasons that there is no real prospect of establishing misuse of private information. The alleged breaches of Articles 10 and 11 appear to relate to the College’s instructions to the Claimant not to communicate with other staff except with permission. The instruction was plainly a reasonable one made for a legitimate purpose.”

Accordingly, the data protection and Human Rights Act claims were struck out.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under Data Protection, employment, Further education, human rights, Information Commissioner, judgments, LinkedIn Post, misuse of private information

Tagged as , ,

September 4, 2024 · 7:57 am

Gender critical beliefs not relevant in determining whether FOI request was vexatious

[reposted from LinkedIn]

The holding and expression of gender critical beliefs was not valid evidence for LNER to take into account in determining that an FOI request was vexatious.

Can a public authority take into account a requester’s public comments elsewhere, when considering whether a request is vexatious under s14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in circumstances where the comments are expressions of a belief, the holding of which is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010? The answer, says the Information Commissioner’s Office, in a well-argued decision notice, is “no” – however much the authority might disagree with the expressions.

The request was to London North East Railway (a company wholly owned by the Department for Transport), and therefore a public authority for the purposes of FOIA), and was for information about the process and costs of decorating a train in Pride colours, the processes for selecting train designs more generally and about plans for future designs.

LNER refused the request as vexatious, and justified this to the ICO on grounds including the content of social media posts by the requester

have demonstrated views that indicate a bias against transgender individuals, [that complying could lead to] harmful discourse and cause distress to our transgender employees and the people that the Pride train represents [and that the requester’s] focused questions on binary sex divisions and the specific targeting of a Pride-themed train…indicates a shift toward a disruptive agenda rather than an informational one.

In response, the requester

accepted that she had a binary view of sex, but…that this was a protected belief [citing Forstater v CGD]

LNER had therefore, in her view,

unlawfully discriminated against her because it had refused to provide information, that she would otherwise have been entitled to receive, due to her beliefs.

The ICO ruled that LNER had been entitled to take “a holistic view of the request” and nothing in principle had prevented it taking account of social media posts. However

the question of vexatiousness does not turn on what the complainant’s beliefs are, or are not. Nor whether she is, or is not, entitled to those beliefs

The question was “whether the request had a serious purpose and value” – here, it did – and whether that was outweighed by factors pointing towards vexatiousness. The ICO found that it was not:

the complainant’s motivation may well have a grounding in her beliefs, but the public authority has not demonstrated that she has made the request just to be disruptive, or just to target individual. Nor has it demonstrated that it would be subject to an unjustified burden if it were to respond to the present request

The right to information under FOIA is a species of the Article 10 ECHR right to receive and impart information. This is an important decision by the ICO on the extent of the right.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under access to information, Equality Act, FOIA, Freedom of Information, human rights, Information Commissioner

Tagged as , ,

July 30, 2024 · 7:19 am

Immunity from suit in data protection (and other) claims

[reposted from LinkedIn]

All too often, in my experience, public authorities might inadvertently disclose confidential information about one person to someone with whom that person is in dispute, or from whom that person is in danger. Typical examples are when a council discloses information about one resident to a neighbour, or when the police disclose information about a vulnerable person to their abusive partner.

This can also happen during the process of court proceedings.

There is a long-standing – and complex – common law concept of “immunity from suit”, which, in the very simplest and most general of terms, will prevent someone from being sued for something they say in court.

This judgment involves a fascinating, but headache-inducing, analysis of the different types of immunity from suit – witness immunity at court, advocate’s immunity at court, witness immunity before court, advocate’s immunity before court and legal proceedings immunity before court (which may apply to lawyers, police officers or administrative staff preparing a case for trial).

The background facts are grim: a woman fleeing from domestic violence was forced to flee from safe homes because twice her addresses were inadvertently disclosed (or at least indicated) to the perpetrator, against whom criminal proceedings were being brought – once by the police and once by the CPS.

The woman brought claims against both public authorities under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Data Protection Act 2018 and in misuse of private information. However, the defendants initially succeeded in striking the claims out/getting summary judgment (one part of the claim against the police was permitted to continue).

Mr Justice Richie upheld the appeal against the strike out/summary judgment, with rather a tour de force run through of the history and authorities on immunity (para 66 begins with the words “I start 439 years ago”).

In very short summary, he held that strike out/summary judgment had been inappropriate, because “the movement in the last 25 years in the appellate case law has been away from absolutism, towards careful consideration of whether the facts of each case actually do fit with the claimed ‘immunity’ by reference to whether the long-established justifications for the immunity apply” (at 106). In the examples here, it was at least arguable that immunity was being claimed not over evidence in the case, but “extraneous or peripheral or administrative matters”. The judge should have applied a balancing exercise to the facts to decide whether immunity applied: she had failed to do so, and had not been entitled to determine that there was no arguable claim

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under compensation, damages, Data Protection Act 2018, human rights, judgments, LinkedIn Post, litigation, misuse of private information, police

Tagged as , , , ,

June 12, 2024 · 6:14 pm

A violation of the presumption of innocence

This may not be a post directly related to information rights (although it does involve disclosure of information in response to a parliamentary question – which is a potential route to access to information which should never be underestimated). But I’m writing more because it’s on a topic of considerable public interest, and because the efforts and the campaigning of the applicants, and of Appeal, deserve support.

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that the scheme in England and Wales for assessing whether people whose criminal convictions are subsequently overturned is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (the “Convention”).

Regardless of whether the ECtHR was correct or not, the underlying issue is, in my view, a national scandal and one that any incoming government should set right as a matter of priority.

Under Section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (as amended in 2018) the state must pay compensation where a new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that there has been a miscarriage of justice. But a miscarriage of justice will only have occurred “if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence”. This reverses what would be the normal burden of proof in criminal justice matters, and in effect requires the wrongfully convicted person to prove their innocence to gain compensation, despite the fact that their conviction has been overturned.

Figures given in response to a parliamentary question last year revealed that an extraordinary 93% of cases did not warrant compensation under the scheme. 

At the ECtHR, the applicants contended that the domestic scheme infringed Article 6(2) of the Convention, which provides that “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”. Although the ECtHR noted “the potentially devastating impact of a wrongful conviction” it also held that the UK was

free to decide how “miscarriage of justice” should be defined for these purposes, and to thereby draw a legitimate policy line as to who out of the wider class of people who had had their convictions quashed on appeal should be eligible for compensation…, so long as the policy line was not drawn in such a way that the refusal of compensation in and of itself imputed criminal guilt to an unsuccessful applicant

It was not, said the ECtHR, its role “to determine how States should translate into material terms the moral obligation they may owe to persons who have been wrongfully convicted”.

Although there was a strong dissenting opinion which would have held that the compensation scheme resulted in a violation of the presumption of innocence, it must now fall to the next Parliament to take forward the “moral obligation” and put right where a previous Parliament went wrong. This does not, and should not, need to wait for the outcome of the Malkinson Inquiry. That inquiry may well have things to find out, and things to say, in general, about miscarriages of justice but it is not in its remit to consider the compensation point: that can, and should, be resolved sooner.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

1 Comment

Filed under access to information, Article 6, Europe, human rights, Ministry of Justice, parliament, Uncategorized

Tagged as

June 9, 2024 · 7:31 am

Drones and freedom of expression

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone has the (qualified) right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to receive and impart information. And section 12(4) of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires a court: i) to have regard to the importance of freedom of expression, when considering whether to grant any relief which, if granted, might affect the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, and ii) where the proceedings relate to material which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to have regard to the extent to which the material has, or is about to, become available to the public, or the extent to which it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published.

In a recent case in the High Court – sitting in Manchester – an application for an interim injunction was granted against one named and a number of unknown respondents preventing them from entering the site of the former St Joseph’s seminary in Up Holland, but also preventing the flying of drones over the site. There is already a large amount of footage taken previously by such drones on the various online video-sharing sites, and some of them are fascinating and informative. The future of the site is evidently a matter of significant local interest.

The concerns of the applicants for the injunction are compelling: there have been numerous incidents of trespass on the site, and it is in a very dangerous condition.

The only published judgment I have been able to find is on the website of the chambers of the barrister representing the applicant. It appears to be a transcript of an ex tempore judgment. The judge notes that section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 provides that

No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable

A piece on the website of the solicitors acting for the applicants indicates that the judge proceeded on the assumption that section 76 applied to drones and that the drone operator had complied with the requirements of the Air Navigation Order 2016. He then said that either i) section 76 did not apply, because the flight involved the taking of footage for its presumed purpose of encouraging trespass (and presumably therefore it was not “by reason of the flight only” for section 76 purposes), or, ii) if section 76 did apply, then the height of the drones could not be reasonable, because of the taking of the footage.

However, nowhere in the judgment is there any indication that the judge has had regard to the court’s duties under section 12 of the Human Rights Act. It strikes me that there are clear freedom of expression issues raised. A large number of people are interested in general in abandoned buildings, and there is an enormous amount of online attention to this subject, and, more locally, there is clearly notable interest in the fate of a grade 2 listed building: the drone footage must, surely, play a part in meeting this public interest.

So it strikes me that it was incumbent on the court to conduct the balancing exercise inherent in Article 10, which provides that the exercise of freedom of expression may be

subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime [and] for the protection of health…

The respondents in this case did not attend the hearing but the judge was satisfied that notice had been given to them (although the judgment does not explain how notice was given to the persons unknown). Perhaps, though, if they had attended, and been represented, their counsel might have drawn the court’s attention to its section 12 duty.

In a letter to The Times in 1987 (quoted here), Lord Scarman deprecated a decision of the House of Lords, and commented that

their Lordships have, with great respect, overlooked the more fundamental law providing the right of the public to access to information … and the public right of free speech…Old ingrained habits die hard. We are not yet able to abandon the traditional emphasis of our law on private rights …

Might he have found himself writing a similar letter today?

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

4 Comments

Filed under access to information, Article 10, drones, human rights, journalism

Tagged as ,

September 11, 2023 · 9:08 pm

When is a fundamental right no longer fundamental?

Answer – when Parliament approves legislation to remove it

Rather quietly, the government is introducing secondary legislation which will have the effect of removing the (admittedly odd) situation whereby the UK GDPR describes the right to protection of personal data as a fundamental right.

Currently, Article 1(2) of the UK GDPR says “This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data”. For the purposes of the EU GDPR this makes sense (and made sense when the UK was part of the EU) because the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”) identifies the right to protection of personal data as a free-standing right.

However, the draft Data Protection (Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 will amend Article 1(2) of the UK GDPR so that it will simply say “This Regulation contributes to the protection of individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms.”

The explanatory memorandum to the draft regulations states that

There is no direct equivalent to the right to the protection of personal data in the UK law. However, the protection of personal data falls within the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is enshrined in UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Data protection rights are also protected by UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018 and will continue to be protected by the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill in our domestic legislation.

None of this addresses the point that the EU specifically decided, in the Charter, to separate the right to protection of personal data from the right to respect for a private and family life. One reason being that sometimes personal data is not notably, or inherently, private, but might, for instance, be a matter of public record, or in the public domain, yet still merit protection.

The explanatory memorandum also says, quite understandably, that the UK GDPR has to be amended so as to ensure that

references to retained EU rights and freedoms which would become redundant at the end of 2023 are replaced with references to rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which has been enshrined in the UK’s domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998

Nonetheless, it was interesting for a while that the UK had a fundamental right in its domestic legislation that was uncoupled from its source instrument – but that, it seems, will soon be gone.

1 Comment

Filed under Data Protection, human rights, parliament, UK GDPR

Tagged as ,

February 22, 2023 · 8:24 am

Monitoring of lawyers by the state

In the Commons on Monday Robert Jenrick, minister for immigration, said, in the context of a debate on the implications of the violent disorder outside a hotel providing refuge for asylum seekers, in Knowsley on 10 February, and in answer to a question about why no “small boats bill” has been introduced into Parliament

this is one of the most litigious areas of public life. It is an area where, I am afraid, human rights lawyers abuse and exploit our laws at times, and where the courts have taken an expansive approach in the past. That is why we must get this right, but we will be bringing forward that legislation very soon

When pressed on his reference to abuse of the law by lawyers, and asked “how many solicitors, advocates and barristers have been reported by the Home Office in the last 12 months to the regulatory authorities”, Mr Jenrick replied

We are monitoring the activities, as it so happens, of a small number of legal practitioners, but it is not appropriate for me to discuss that here.

This is a remarkable statement, both in its lack of detail and in its potential effect. The prospect of the monitoring of lawyers by the state carries chilling implications. It may well be that Mr Jenrick had no intention of making what could be interpreted as an oppressive statement, but words are important, and words said in Parliament carry particular weight.

It may also be that the “monitoring” in question consists of legitimate investigation into potential criminality by that “small number” of lawyers, but if that was the case, why not say so?

But “monitoring”, in itself, must be done in accordance with the law. If it is in the context of a criminal investigation, or surveillance, there are specific laws which may apply.

And to the extent that it involves the processing of personal data of the lawyers in question (which, inevitably, it surely must, when one considers that “processing” means, among other things “collection, recording, organisation, structuring or storage” performed on personal data) the monitoring must comply with applicable data protection laws).

As a fundamental general principle, processing of personal data must be transparent (see Articles 5(1)(a), 13 and 14 UK GDPR, or, for law enforcement processing, section 44 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA), or, for Intelligence Services Processing, section 93 of the DPA.

There are qualifications to and exemptions from this general principle, but, in the absence of circumstances providing such an exemption, a data subject (here, the lawyers who are apparently being monitored) should be made aware of the processing. The information they should receive includes, among other things: the identity and the contact details of the person directing the processing; the legal basis and the purposes of the processing, and; the recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data.

We tend to call the notices we receive under these provisions “privacy notices”. Those of us who have practised data protection law for a long time will remember the term “fair processing notice” which is arguably a better term. Whatever one calls them, though, such notices are a bedrock of the law – without being aware of the processing, and the risks, rules, safeguards and rights in relation to it, data subjects cannot properly exercise their rights.

With all that in mind, has the Home Office – or whoever it is who is directing the monitoring of the “small number of lawyers” – informed them that they are being monitored? If not, why not?

Returning to my earlier comments about the oppressiveness of comments to the effect that, or the giving of a perception that, the coercive powers of the state are being deployed against lawyers by monitoring them, one wonders if the Information Commissioner should take steps to investigate the background to Mr Jenrick’s comments.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, Home Office, human rights, Information Commissioner, law enforcement, monitoring, privacy notice, surveillance, transparency

Tagged as , , , ,

July 22, 2022 · 8:53 am

High Court muddle over data protection regime

A relatively common error by those unaccustomed to the rather odd structure of the data protection statutory regime in the UK, is to look first to the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA”) for the applicable law, instead of the UK GDPR. This is despite the fact that the very first section of the DPA instructs us in how the regime works. Section 1(2) provides that “most processing of personal data is subject to the UK GDPR”, and then sections 1(4) and (5) explain that Parts 3 and 4 of the DPA deal with those parts of the regime (law enforcement processing and intelligence services processing) which are out of the scope of UK GDPR.

“Put me to one side” – says the DPA tactfully – “you should have picked up your copy of the UK GDPR first, and not me”.

Accordingly, the key provisions, and the basic principles, applying to most processing, are to be found in the UK GDPR.

The result of this relatively common error, is that people will sometimes cite, say, section 45 of the DPA in relation to a generic subject access request, when in fact, the applicable provision is Article 15 of the UK GDPR (section 45 applies to subject access requests to competent authorities for the purposes of law enforcement).

Occasionally, I have seen non-specialist lawyers make this mistake.

And now, I have seen a high court judge do the same. In a judicial review case in the High Court of Northern Ireland, challenging the accuracy of a child’s social care records, part of the claim (which was primarily an Article 8 human rights claim) was pleaded as also a breach of Article 5(1) and (6) of the “GDPR” (the correct pleading should have been, and maybe was, by reference to the UK GDPR) and Part 1 of the DPA. Article 5(1) of the UK GDPR contains the data protection principles.

The judge, however, stated that

It seems to the court that in fact the relevant part of the 2018 Act are sections 86 to 91 which set out the six data protection principles in relation to data processing.

This is simply wrong. Sections 86 to 91 of the DPA lay out the data protection principles only in relation to intelligence services processing (i.e. processing of personal data by the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or by the Government Communications Headquarters).

It isn’t clear whether there was any discussion about this in the court (quite possibly not), but it appears not to have been picked up when the judgment was circulated in draft or published to the parties. As it is, it seems very likely that nothing turns on it. This is because the Part 4 DPA principles, like the Part 3 DPA principles, effectively mirror the principles in Article 5(1) UK GDPR, and so the analysis, for the purposes of the substantive matter, was sound.

So this was an error of form, more than substance.

However, there are some differences between the UK GDPR regime, the Part 3 DPA regime and the Part 4 DPA regime, and in different circumstances an error like this could result in an outcome which is wrong, and harmful.

The views in this post (and indeed most posts on this blog) are my personal ones, and do not represent the views of any organisation I am involved with.

Leave a comment

Filed under accuracy, Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, GDPR, human rights, Ireland, judiciary, UK GDPR

Tagged as , ,

March 3, 2022 · 9:28 pm

Ukraine Justice Alliance

My firm, Mishcon de Reya, is working with a collective of lawyers, law firms, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to form an alliance that will support Ukrainians in response to the catastrophic invasion of Ukraine. Please share widely:

Ukraine Justice Alliance

Leave a comment

Filed under human rights

Tagged as