A piece by me on the Mishcon de Reya website on yesterday’s news that the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill has been paused
Tag Archives: data protection
News from the Mishcon de Reya website on data protection concerns arising from criminal barristers’ dispute with the MoJ
ICO often say they can’t award compensation, but what they can do is – in criminal cases – make an application for the court to make an award (separate to any fines or costs). But as far as I know, until this case last week, they’d never done so:
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.
I’ve written an “initial thoughts” analysis on the Mishcon de Reya website of the some of the key provisions of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill:
My Mishcon de Reya colleague Adam Rose and I have recorded a short (25 minute) podcast on the government’s recent announcement of proposed data protection reforms.
This is a significant development – the Information Commissioner will now be able to keep up to £7.5m a year from penalties, to cover their litigation and debt recovery costs:
A piece by me just uploaded to the Mishcon de Reya website, on an FOI disclosure to me of the most recent reprimands under GDPR/ UK GDPR issued by the Information Commissioner