Tag Archives: data protection

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 29, 2025 · 8:19 am

Oral disclosure of personal data: a new domestic case

“Pretexting” and “blagging” are forms of social engineering whereby someone attempts to extract information from a source by deception. One (unethical) example is when a journalist purports to be someone else in order to gather information for a story.

A recent misuse of private information and data protection judgment in the High Court deals with a different, and sadly not uncommon, example – where an estranged, abusive partner convinced a third party to give information about their partner so they can continue their harassment of them.

The claimant had worked at a JD Wetherspoon pub, but had left a few months previously. She had given her contact details, including her mother’s mobile phone number, to her manager, and the details were kept in a paper file, marked “Strictly Private and Confidential”, in a locked filing cabinet. During the time she was employed she had been the victim of offences by a former partner of serious violence and harassment which involved subjecting her to many unwanted phone calls. He was ultimately convicted of these and sentenced to 2 ½ years in prison. Her employer was aware of the claimant’s concerns about him.

While her abuser was on remand, he rang the pub, pretending to be a police officer who needed to contact the claimant urgently. Although the pub chain had guidance on pretexting, under which such attempts to acquire information should be declined initially and referred to head office, the pub gave out the claimant’s mother’s number to the abuser, who then managed to speak to (and verbally abuse) the claimant, causing understandable distress.

She brought claims in the county court in misuse of private information, breach of confidence and for breach of data protection law. She succeeded at first instance with the first two, but not with the data protection claim. Wetherspoons appealed and she cross-challenged, not by appeal but by way of a respondent’s notice, the rejection of the data protection claim.

In a well-reasoned judgment in Raine v JD Wetherspoon PLC [2025] EWHC 1593 (KB), Mr Justice Bright dismissed the defendant’s appeals. He rejected their argument that the Claimant’s mother’s mobile phone number did not constitute the Claimant’s information or alternatively that it was not information in which she had a reasonable expectation of privacy: it was not ownership of the mobile phone that mattered, nor ownership of the account relating to it – what was relevant was information: the knowledge of the relevant digits. As between the claimant and the defendant, that was the claimant’s information, which was undoubtedly private when given to the defendants and was intended to remain private, rather than being published to others.

The defendant then argued that there can be no cause of action for misuse of private information if the Claimant is unable to establish a claim under the DPA/GDPR, and, relatedly, that a data security duty could not arise under the scope of the tortious cause of action of misuse of private information. In all honesty I struggle to understand this argument, at least as articulated in the judgment, probably because, as the judge suggests, this was not a data security case involving failure to take measures to secure the information. Rather, it involved a positive act of misuse: the positive disclosure of the information by the defendant to the abuser.

The broadly similar appeal grounds in relation to breach of confidence failed, for broadly similar reasons.

The counter challenge to the prior dismissal of the data protection claim, by contrast, succeeded. At first instance, the recorder had accepted the defendant’s argument that this was a case of purely oral disclosure of information, and that, applying Scott v LGBT Foundation Limited, this was not “processing” of “personal data”. However, as the judge found, in Scott,

the information had only ever been provided to the defendant orally; and…then retained not in electronic or manual form in a filing system, but only in the memory of the individual who had received the original oral disclosure…In that case, there was no record, and no processing. Here, there was a record of the relevant information, and it was processed: the personnel file was accessed by [the defendant’s employee], the relevant information was extracted by her and provided in written form to [another employee], for him to communicate to [the abuser].

This fell “squarely within the definition of ‘processing’ in the GDPR at article 4(2)”. Furthermore, there was judicial authority in Holyoake v Candy that, in some circumstances, oral disclosure will constitute processing (a view supported by the European Court in Endemol Shine Finland Oy).

Damages for personal injury, in the form of exacerbation of existing psychological damage, of £4500 were upheld.

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 Breach of confidence, Data Protection, data sharing, GDPR, judgments, misuse of private information, Oral disclosure

Tagged as data protection, GDPR, misuse of private information

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

June 3, 2025 · 7:35 am

Could the Data (Use and Access) Bill fall?

[EDIT: in this post I originally said I understood that the current parliamentary session would end when Parliament rises for summer recess. Prompted by Andrew Harvey, on the Jiscmail Data Protection list, I checked this point, and I was wrong: my MP (who, on the two occasions I’ve emailed him, has been impressively responsive), says “With the legislative programme from the King’s Speech barely a quarter of the way through, I would guess this will be at least an 18 month session”). So one of the pressing issues in the post is less pressing, but that still doesn’t get round the issue of the impasse.]

Westminster is at an impasse over the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Lords have repeatedly introduced amendments, in the form of totally new clauses on AI and copyright which were never intended to be part of the Bill, and the Commons have repeatedly removed them. Yesterday’s reprise of the exercise suggests that ping pong is not stopping any time soon.

This must be of tremendous frustration to the government. In particular, it will be of significant concern to the ministers and civil servants who will be negotiating with the European Commission over the reciprocal data adequacy arrangements which allow free transfer of personal data between the EU and the UK. The Commission had introduced a sunset clause to the original agreement, which was due to expire this month, but this has been extended for a further six months, specially to allow for the passage and enactment of the DUAB (the Commission wants to see what the revised UK data protection scheme will look like).

So what happens now? As the Bill was introduced in the Lords, the Commons cannot invoke its powers to force the Bill through to Royal Assent, under section 2 of the Parliament Act 2011.

The current parliamentary session may well run on for some time yet. Traditionally, all parliamentary business would cease at prorogation, so if a Bill hadn’t passed, it fell. In recent years, however, procedures in both Houses have been developed, whereby, by agreement, a Bill can “carry over” to the next session. This is very unusual, though, with a Bill introduced in the Lords. It is also difficult to see how, or why, there would be agreement to carry over a Bill like the DUAB, over which the two Houses are in actual disagreement.

Maybe the alternative would be to allow the Bill to fall (or withdraw it), and reintroduce it in the Commons, in the next session.

But there would be no winners in such a scenario. The government (and Parliament) would have to go to significant time and cost, and the opponents in the Lords, serried behind Baroness Kidron, would be no closer to getting the artists’ protections from AI models that they seek.

And in the meantime, the extended sunset clause for UK adequacy would be dropping below the horizon.

Is there still time for compromise? The simple answer is yes, but there have been few signs of much movement from either side.

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 adequacy, Data (Use and Access) Bill, parliament

Tagged as data protection, parliament

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

April 14, 2025 · 8:51 am

Personal use of work devices – an Irish judgment

A frequent headache for data protection practitioners and lawyers is how to separate (conceptually and actually) professional and personal information on work devices and accounts. It is a rare employer (and an even rarer employee) who doesn’t encounter a mix of the two categories.

But, if I use, say, my work phone to send a couple of text messages (as I did on Saturday after the stupid SIM in my personal phone decided to stop working), who is the controller of the personal data involved in that activity? I’d be minded to say that I am, (and that my employer becomes, at most, a processor).

That is also the view taken by the High Court in Ireland, in an interesting recent judgment.

The applicant was an employee of the Health Service Executive (HSE), and did not, in this case, have authority or permission to use his work phone for personal use. He nonetheless did so, and then claimed that a major data breach in 2021 at the HSE led to his personal email account and a cryptocurrency account being hacked, with a resultant loss of €1400. He complained to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, who said that as his personal use was not authorised, the HSE was not the controller in respect of the personal data at issue.

The applicant sought judicial review of the DPC decision. This of course meant the application would only succeed if it met the high bar of showing that the DPC had acted unlawfully or irrationally. That bar was not met, with the judge holding that:

The DPC did not purport to adopt an unorthodox interpretation of the definition of data controller. Instead, against the backdrop of the factual matrix before it, it found that the HSE had not “determined the purposes and means 28of the processing” of the data relating to the Gmail, Yahoo, Fitbit and Binance accounts accessed by the applicant on his work phone. That finding appears to me to be self-evident, where that use of the phone clearly was not authorised by the HSE.

I think that has to be correct. But I’m not sure I quite accept the full premise, because I think that even if the HSE had authorised personal use, the legal position would be the same (although possibly not quite as unequivocally so).

In genuinely interested in others’ thoughts though.

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 controller, Data Protection, employment, GDPR, Ireland, judgments, Uncategorized

Tagged as data protection

Tag Archives: data protection

Could the Data (Use and Access) Bill fall?

Blogroll

Recent Posts

Follow Blog via Email

RSS Links

Privacy Notice