Category Archives: UK GDPR

November 29, 2025 · 6:41 am

NCND for personal data – a qualified exemption?

[reposted from my LinkedIn Account]

I’ve been known to criticise First-tier Tribunal (FTT) judgments in the freedom of information jurisdiction. By contrast, this one is superb.

In it, the FTT dismantle the argument (and the decision notice) of the Information Commissioner’s Office that Bolton NHS Foundation Trust were entitled to “neither confirm nor deny” (NCND) holding reviews, including a review by PWC, into the Trust’s governance and management. The PWC review was the subject of an article in the Health Service Journal, and the requester was the journalist, Lawrence Dunhill.

Firstly, the FTT noted that the ICO “case begins with an elementary error of fact. It treats the Trust as having given an NCND response to the entirety of the Request when it did no such thing” (the Trust had only applied NCND in respect of the request for a PWC report, but had confirmed it held other reviews). Oddly, the Trust, in its submissions for the appeal, simply ignored this error (the FTT chose not to speculate on “whether that omission was accidental or tactical”).

Secondly, and notably, the FTT found a fundamental error of law in the ICO’s approach (and, by implication, in its guidance) to NCND in the context of personal data. Section 2(3)(fa) of FOIA provides that section 40(2) is an absolute exemption (therefore not subject to a public interest test). But section 2(3) does not include section 40(5B) (the personal data NCND provision) in the list of absolute exemptions. As far as I know, the ICO has always taken the view, however, that it is an absolute exemption – certainly its current guidance says this).

That approach, held the FTT, is “simply wrong…the exemption under FOIA, s40(5B)(a)(i) is qualified and the public interest balancing test applies”. And but for that error, they said, the ICO might have reached a different conclusion.

As it was, the FTT held that the legitimate interests balancing test under Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR was sufficient to determine the issue: merely confirming or denying whether the PWC review was held would not cause unwarranted prejudice to a named individual when balanced against the requester’s legitimate interests.

It will be interesting to see if the ICO appeal this. Given the strength of the criticism it would perhaps be bold to do so, but it might be that the only alternative will be to have to rewrite their guidance on s40(5), and rethink their long-held view on it.

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 Data Protection, FOIA, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, judgments, NCND, UK GDPR

Tagged as data protection, FOI, ICO

July 29, 2025 · 5:44 pm

ICO fines: are you certain?

In his inaugural speech as Information Commissioner, in 2022, John Edwards said

my focus is on bringing certainty in what the law requires of you and your organisations, and in how the regulator acts

It’s a message he’s sought to convey on many occasions since. No surprise: it’s one of the Commissioner’s tasks under the Regulators’ Code to

improve confidence in compliance for those they regulate, by providing greater certainty

This isn’t the place or the time for a broad analysis of how well the ICO has measured up to those standards, but I want to look at one particular example of where there appears to be some uncertainty.

In March 2024, the ICO fined the Central YMCA £7500 for serious contraventions of the UK GDPR. In announcing the fine, the ICO said that it would have been £300,000 but that “this was subsequently reduced in line with the ICO’s public sector approach” (the policy decision whereby “fines for public sector bodies are reduced where appropriate”). When questioned why a charity benefited from the public sector approach, the ICO stated that

Central YMCA is a charity that does a lot of good work, they engaged with us in good faith after the incident happened, recognised their mistake immediately and have made amends to their processing activities…the fine is in line with the spirit of our public sector approach

So the charity sector might have reasonably drawn from this that, in the event that another charity doing a “lot of good work” seriously contravened the UK GDPR, but engaged in good faith with the ICO and made amends to its processing activities, it would also benefit from the public sector approach, with a similar reduction of around 97.5% in any fine.

However, on 28 July, the Scottish charity Birthlink was fined £18,000 by the ICO for serious contraventions of the UK GDPR but the ICO did not apply the public sector approach. When I questioned why, the answer merely confirmed that it had not been applied, but that they had applied their Fining Guidance. Admittedly, Birthlink did not recognise the seriousness of its contraventions for around two years, but that was not mentioned in the ICO’s answer.

I was also referred to the consultation on continuing the public sector approach, which ran earlier this year. That consultation explained that the proposal was not to apply the public sector approach to charities in the future, because the ICO would have regard to the definition of “public authority” and “public body” at section 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018, which, for obvious reasons, doesn’t include charities.

However, the outcome of that consultation has not been announced yet, and the ICO site says

In the meantime, we will continue to apply the approach outlined by the Commissioner in his June 2022 open letter.

As that current approach is the one under which the ICO applied great leniency to the Central YMCA, the question therefore remains – why did Birthlink not also benefit from it?

And there’s a wider question: the definition of a public body/authority at section 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 has been in effect since 2018. Why did the ICO think, in 2024, that section 7 was not relevant, and that a (wealthy) charity should qualify for the public sector approach, but then decide that another (much less wealthy) charity shouldn’t, when facing a fine only a few months later?

The answers are far from certain.

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 consistency, Data Protection Act 2018, fines, Information Commissioner, monetary penalty notice, UK GDPR

Tagged as data protection, ICO, UK GDPR

June 20, 2025 · 8:11 am

What the DUAA 2025 will do

Section 1(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 tells us that

Most processing of personal data is subject to the UK GDPR

Despite the attention given to the progress of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (and I have certainly given it a lot), now that it has passed, its significance for data protection practitioners is essentially only in how it will amend the three core legislative instruments relevant to their practice area: the UK GDPR, the DPA 2018, and PECR.

The DUAA is (in data protection law terms) mostly an amending statute: once its provisions have commenced, their relevance lies in how they amend those three core texts.

How that amending is done in practice is important to note.

When a piece of legislation is amended, Parliament doesn’t reenact it, so the “official” printed version remains. In pre-internet days this meant that practitioners had to read the original instrument, and the amending instrument, side by side, and note what changes applied. This was generally done with the assistance of legal publishers, who might print “consolidated” versions of the original instrument with, effectively, the amendments showing in mark-up.

In the internet age, things actually haven’t changed in substance, but it’s very much easier to read the consolidated versions. If, for example, you go to the legislation.gov.uk website, and look at the DPA 2018, you can view it in “Original (as enacted)” version, and “Latest available” version (in the second image below, for instance, you can see that “GDPR” was amended to “UK GDPR”, with the footnote explaining that this was effected by
The Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019)).

The DUAA has not been published yet (and remember that many of its provisions won’t come into immediate effect, but will require secondary legislation to “commence” them into effect), but once it is, and once the clever people who maintain the legislation website have done their thing, most practitioners won’t need to refer to the DUAA: they should, instead, refer to the newly amended, consolidated versions of the UK GDPR, the DPA 2018 and PECR.

And also remember, “Most processing of personal data is [still] subject to the UK GDPR”.

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 Data (Use and Access) Act, Data (Use and Access) Bill, Data Protection, Legislation, UK GDPR

Tagged as data protection, UK GDPR

June 9, 2025 · 12:36 pm

Defamation rules are applied to UK GDPR claim

An interesting recent judgment in the High Court considers the extent to which rules in defamation law might also apply to data protection claims.

In July 2024 His Honour Judge Lewis struck out a claim in defamation brought by Dale Vince against Associated Newspapers. The claim arose from a publication in the Daily Mail (and through the Mail+ app). The article reported that the Labour Party had returned a £100,000 donation made by another person, who was said to be “a high-flying City financier accused of sex harassment”, but also said that the claimant had donated £1.5m to the Labour Party, but then caused the Party embarrassment by joining an “eco-protest” in London, which had blocked traffic around Parliament Square. The article had the headline “Labour repays £100,000 to ‘sex harassment’ donor”, followed by eleven paragraphs of text, two photographs of the claimant and the caption “Road blockers: Dale Vince in London yesterday, and circled as he holds up traffic with Just Stop Oil”.

The strike-out succeeded on the basis that a claim in libel “may not be founded on a headline, or on headlines plus photographs and captions, in isolation from the related text, and it is impermissible to carve the readership into different groups, those who read only headlines (or headlines and captions) and those who read the whole article”, following the rule(s) in Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65 (the wording quoted is from the defendant’s strike-out application). When the full article was read, as the claimant conceded, the ordinary reader would appreciate very quickly that he was not the person being accused of sexual harassment.

A subsequent claim by Mr Vince, in data protection, under the UK GDPR, has now also been struck out (Vince v Associated Newspapers [2025] EWHC 1411 (KB)). This time, the strike out succeeded on the basis that, although the UK GDPR claim was issued (although not served) prior to the handing down of judgment in the defamation claim, Mr Vince not only could, but should have brought it earlier:

There was every reason why the UKGDPR and defamation claims should have been brought in the same proceedings. Both claims arose out of the same event – the publication of the article in Mail+ and the Daily Mail. Both claims rely on the same factual circumstances, namely the juxtaposition of the headline, photographs and caption, and the contention that the combination of the headline and the photograph created the misleading impression that Mr Vince had been accused of sexual harassment. In one claim this was said to be defamatory, in the other the misleading impression created was said to comprise unfair processing of personal data

This new claim was, said Mr Justice Swift, an abuse of process – a course which would serve only “to use the court’s process in a way that is unnecessary and is oppressive to Associated Newspapers”.

Additionally, the judge would have granted Associated Newspapers’ application for summary judgment, on the grounds that the rule in Charleston would have applied to the data protection claim as it had to the defamation claim:

in the context of this claim where the processing relied on takes the form of publication, the unfairness relied on is that a headline and photographs gave a misleading impression, and the primary harmed caused is said to be reputational damage, the law would be incoherent if the fairness of the processing was assessed other than by considering the entirety of what was published

This last point, although, strictly, obiter, is an important one: where a claim of unfair processing, by way of publication of personal data, is brought in data protection, the courts are likely to demand that the entirety of what was published be considered, and not just personal data (or parts of personal data) in isolation.

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.

1 Comment

Filed under Data Protection, defamation, fairness, judgments, UK GDPR

Tagged as data protection, defamation, UK GDPR

June 4, 2025 · 8:08 am

Covert recordings in family law proceedings – some slightly flawed guidance

The issue of the legality of the making of, and subsequent use of, covert audio and/or visual recordings of individuals is a complex one – even more so when it comes to whether such recordings can be adduced as evidence in court proceedings.

I’m not going to try to give an answer here, but what I will do is note that the Family Justice Council has recently produced guidance on cover recordings in family law proceedings concerning children, and it contains some rather surprising sections dealing with data protection law.

Firstly, I should say what it gets right: I think it is correct when it indicates that processing consisting of the taking of and use of covert recordings for the purpose of proceedings will not normally be able to avail itself of the carve-out from the statutory scheme under Article 2(2)(a) UK GDPR (for purely personal or household purposes).

However, throughout, when addressing the issue of the processing of children’s data, it refers to the Information Commissioner’s Office’s Children’s Code, but doesn’t note (or notice?) that that Code is drafted specifically to guide online services on the subject of age appropriate design of such services. Although some of its general comments about children’s data protection rights will carry over to other circumstances, the Children’s Code is not directly relevant to the FJC’s topic.

It also goes into some detail about the need for an Article 6(1) UK GDPR lawful basis if footage is shared with another person. Although strictly true, this is hardly the most pressing point (there are a few potential bases available, or exemptions to the need to identify one). But it also goes on to say that a failure to identify a lawful basis will be a “breach of the DPA 2018” (as well as the UK GDPR): I would like its authors to say what specific provisions of the DPA it would breach (hint: none).

It further, and incorrectly, suggests that a person making a covert recording might commit the offence of unlawfully obtaining personal data at section 170 DPA 2018. However, it fails to recognise that the offence only occurs where the obtaining is done without the consent of the controller, and, here, the person making and using the recording will be the controller (as the “lawful basis” stuff above indicates).

Finally, when it deals with developing policies for overt recording, it suggests that consent of all the parties would be the appropriate basis, but gives no analysis of how that might be problematic in the context of contentious and fraught family law proceedings.

The data protection aspects of the guidance are only one small part of it, and it may be that it is otherwise sound and helpful. However, it says that the ICO were consulted during its drafting, and gave “helpful advice”. Did the ICO see the final version?

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 Covert recording, Data Protection, Data Protection Act 2018, Family law, Information Commissioner, UK GDPR

Tagged as data protection

April 17, 2025 · 7:17 am

FOIA s11 – All or nothing or a sliding scale?

When a public authority receives a request for information it must, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, determine and communicate whether the information is held (subject to any exemption which removes the obligation to confirm or deny whether it is held), and then determine whether any exemptions to disclosure apply. These latter exemptions include the procedural ones at ss12 and 14 of FOIA (costs grounds and vexatiousness or repeatedness) and the substantive ones at Part II (ss21 to 44). It is only then that, if the requester has requested the information in a specific format (such as a specific software format) the public authority must, under s11, consider whether it must “so far as reasonably practicable” give effect to that preference.

That this is the correct order of things is confirmed by an important (albeit quite niche) judgment of the Upper Tribunal, in Walawalker v The Information Commissioner & Anor [2023] UKFTT 1084 (GRC). Both the ICO, and the First Tier Tribunal, had elided/confused the staged process above, with the result that the appeal before the Upper Tribunal was on the meaning of s11, despite prior findings not having been fully made on the application of exemptions.

Nonetheless, what the Upper Tribunal had to decide was, where (for instance as was the case here) a request was for transcripts of a 50-odd audio recordings of distress calls at sea, and the act of transcribing them would be very resource-heavy, did the obligation to give effect to the preference for transcripts “so far as reasonably practicable” impose an “all or nothing” or a “sliding scale duty”? In this example, did the Maritime and Coast Agency have to transcribe as many of the calls as it could before it became no longer reasonably practicable, or did the exercise as a whole constitute something that was not reasonably practicable?

It was the latter, said the judge: s11 applies to “the information” requested (what the ICO in its submissions, described as being a “unitary concept” – and the judge said this was a “helpful perspective”) not a subset of extract of the information. What Mr Walaker had requested was “all calls”, and it was that “unitary concept” which as at issue in the s11 analysis. It was not reasonably practicable to transcribe all calls, and so the s11 duty did not apply.

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 Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal, judgments, Section 11, UK GDPR

Tagged as FOI, Upper Tribunal

April 16, 2025 · 6:25 am

The Emperor has no clothes!

[reposted from my LinkedIn account]

When a public authority receives a Freedom of Information Act request and the requested information contains personal data (of someone other than the requester) it must first consider whether it can even confirm or deny that the information is held. For instance “Dear NHS Hospital Trust – please say whether you hold a list of embarrassing ailments suffered by Jon Baines, and if you do, disclose the list to me”. To confirm (or deny) even holding the information would tell the requester something private about me, and would contravene the data protection principles at Article 5(1) of the UK GDPR. Therefore, the exemption at s40 of FOIA kicks in – specifically, the exemption at s40(5A): the hospital can refuse to confirm or deny whether the information is held.

But suppose that, mistakenly, the hospital had perhaps confirmed it held the information, but refused to disclose it? The cork, surely, is for ever out of the bottle.

Upon appeal by the requester (this requester really has it in for me) to the ICO, I could understand the latter saying that the hospital should have applied s40(5A) and failure to do so was a failure to comply with FOIA. However, certainly of late, the ICO has engaged in what to me is a strange fiction: it says in these circumstances that it will “retrospectively apply s40(5A)” itself. It will pretend to put the cork back in the bottle, after the wine has been consumed.

And now, the Information Tribunal has upheld an ICO decision to do so, albeit with no argument or analysis as to whether it’s the correct approach. But even more bizarre it says

We are satisfied that the Commissioner was correct to apply section 40(5B) FOIA proactively, notwithstanding the information that has previously been provided by the Trust, to prevent the Trust from providing confirmation or denial that the information is held.

But the Trust had already done so! It can’t retrospectively be prevented from doing something it has already done. The cork is out, the wine all gone.

Am I missing something? Please excuse the sudden mix of metaphor, but can no one else see that the Emperor has no clothes?

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.

13 Comments

Filed under Data Protection, FOIA, Freedom of Information, Information Commissioner, UK GDPR

Tagged as data protection, FOI, ICO

Blogroll

Recent Posts

Follow Blog via Email

RSS Links

Privacy Notice