Category: Information

Newton v Information Commissioner: FTTGRC 22 Jun 2015

FTTGC Disclosure of information the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘FOIA’) and reliance by the Public Authority, the Sheffield City Council (‘the Council’), on Section 14(1) in the fact that they regard the requests as vaxatious.
Held: Dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 2014 – 0179 (GRC)
Bailii
Freedom of Information Act 2000

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550053

Typke v Commission: ECFI 2 Jul 2015

ECJ Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents relating to competition EPSO/AD/230-231/12 – Implied refusal to grant access – Refusal to grant access – Request for modification of the form of order sought submitted in the reply – Time-limit – Withdrawal of the implied decision – No need to adjudicate – Concept of a document – Extraction and organisation of information contained in electronic databases

S. Papasavvas, P
T-214/13, [2015] EUECJ T-214/13, ECLI:EU:T:2015:448
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
European

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550011

S v The United Kingdom; Marper v The United Kingdom: ECHR 4 Dec 2008

(Grand Chamber) The court commented that ‘in determining whether the personal information retained by the authorities involves any of the private-life aspects mentioned above, the court will have due regard to the specific context in which the information at issue has been recorded and retained, the nature of the records, the way in which these records are used and processed and the results that may be obtained.’
Save in exceptional circumstances, the retention by the police of DNA samples and fingerprints taken from persons who were suspected but never convicted of a criminal offence represented an interference with their article 8 rights.

Jean-Paul Costa, P
(2008) 48 EHRR 1169, 30562/04, 30566/04, 25 BHRC 557, [2008] ECHR 1581, 48 EHRR 50, [2009] Crim LR 355
Bailii
European Convention on Huma Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – AB v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 5-Apr-2017
This appeal is concerned with a challenge to the legality of legislation of the Scottish Parliament which deprives a person, A, who is accused of sexual activity with an under-aged person, B, of the defence that he or she reasonably believed that B . .
Cited – Gallagher for Judicial Review (NI) SC 30-Jan-2019
Disclosure of older minor offences to employers 48 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Police, Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.640835

Catt and T, Regina (on The Applications of) v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: SC 4 Mar 2015

Police Data Retention Justifiable

The appellants challenged the collection of data by the police, alleging that its retention interfered with their Article 8 rights. C complained of the retention of records of his lawful activities attending political demonstrations, and T complained of the retention of an harassment warning issued against him. The Commissioner now appealed against a decision that it was unlawful.
Held: (Toulson L dissenting in part). The appeal succeeded. The collection and retention of the data did amount to an interference in the respondent’s Article 8.2 rights, but the actions were justified by the legitimate requirements of police intelligence-gathering in the interests of the maintenance of public order and the prevention of crime. Keeping a record of a ‘prevention of harassment’ letter could be justified by the need of the police in harassment cases to know if there had been previous allegations.
‘At common law the police have the power to obtain and store information for policing purposes, ie broadly speaking for the maintenance of public order and the prevention and detection of crime. These powers do not authorise intrusive methods of obtaining information, such as entry upon private property or acts (other than arrest under common law powers) which would constitute an assault. But they were amply sufficient to authorise the obtaining and storage of the kind of public information in question on these appeals . . The exercise of these powers is subject to an intensive regime of statutory and administrative regulation.’
. . And ‘ the rules need not be statutory, provided that they operate within a framework of law and that there are effective means of enforcing them. Their application, including the manner in which any discretion will be exercised, should be reasonably predictable, if necessary with the assistance of expert advice. But except perhaps in the simplest cases, this does not mean that the law has to codify the answers to every possible issue which may arise. It is enough that it lays down principles which are capable of being predictably applied to any situation.’

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson
[2015] 1 AC 1065, [2015] 2 WLR 664, [2015] 2 All ER 727, [2015] HRLR 4, [2015] WLR(D) 110, [2015] UKSC 9, UKSC 2013/0114
Bailii Summary, WLRD, Bailii, SC, SC Summary
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Data Protection Act 1998, Protection from Harassment Act 1997
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – X v United Kingdom ECHR 1972
The defendant had been convicted of knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution contrary to section 30(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
Held: The Commission rejected as manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s challenge to this provision . .
Cited – Friedl v Austria ECHR 31-Jan-1995
The Commission distinguished between the taking and keeping of photographs without identifying the subjects, and police questioning in order to establish identity and the recording of these personal data; the former was not an interference with . .
At First Instance – Catt v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis Admn 30-May-2012
The claimant objected to the retention of data about him as to his attendance at assorted political protests. He had not engaged in criminality. . .
Appeal from – Catt, Regina (on The Application of) v The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Others CA 14-Mar-2013
The appellant sought an order requiring the defendant to to remove entries against his name in police databases. He had been a frequent protester against what he saw to be unlawful activities of a defence contractor. Other members of his group had . .
Cited – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
Right to Life Did Not include Right to Death
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
Cited – Countryside Alliance and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Attorney General and Another HL 28-Nov-2007
The appellants said that the 2004 Act infringed their rights under articles 8 11 and 14 and Art 1 of protocol 1.
Held: Article 8 protected the right to private and family life. Its purpose was to protect individuals from unjustified intrusion . .
Cited – Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v Sweden ECHR 6-Jun-2006
The Court, having regard to the scope of the notion of ‘private life’ as interpreted in its case-law . . finds that the information about the applicants that was stored on the Secret Police register and was released to them clearly constituted data . .
Cited – Leander v Sweden ECHR 26-Mar-1987
Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander . .
Cited – Rotaru v Romania ECHR 4-May-2000
Grand Chamber – The applicant, a lawyer, complained of a violation of his right to respect for his private life on account of the use against him by the Romanian Intelligence Service of a file which contained information about his conviction for . .
Cited – PG and JH v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Sep-2001
The use of covert listening devices within a police station was an infringement of the right to privacy, since there was no system of law regulating such practices. That need not affect the right to a fair trial. The prosecution had a duty to . .
Cited – Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
Cited – Marper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
Cited – Kinloch v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 19-Dec-2012
The appellant said that the police officers had acted unlawfully when collecting the evidence used against him, in that the information used to support the request for permission to undertake clandestine surveillance had been insufficiently . .
Cited – L, Regina (On the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis SC 29-Oct-2009
Rebalancing of Enhanced Disclosure Requirements
The Court was asked as to the practice of supplying enhanced criminal record certificates under the 1997 Act. It was said that the release of reports of suspicions was a disproportionate interference in the claimants article 8 rights to a private . .
Cited – GC v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 18-May-2011
The court was asked to decide from whom DNA samples could lawfully be taken by the Police,and for how long they should be kept. The first respondent now said that a declaration of incompatibility of section 64(1A) could not be avoided.
Held: . .
Cited – T and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .
Cited – Gillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another HL 8-Mar-2006
The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Humberside Police and Others v The Information Commissioner and Another CA 19-Oct-2009
Complaints had been made that the police were not deleting from their criminal records very old records of minor convictions. The police appealed against a finding that they should do so under Data Protection Principles. The Police had used a policy . .
Cited – Bouchacourt v France ECHR 17-Dec-2009
The applicant had been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for rape and sexual assault on minors. His name had been placed automatically on a Register of Sexual and Violent Offenders, and had had to confirm his address every year and to give notice . .
Cited – MM v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Nov-2012
ECHR The applicant complained about the retention and disclosure in the context of a criminal record check of data concerning a caution she received from the police. he applicant, who lived in Northern Ireland, . .

Cited by:
Cited – ZXC v Bloomberg Lp CA 15-May-2020
Privacy Expecation during police investigations
Appeal from a judgment finding that the Defendant had breached the Claimant’s privacy rights. He made an award of damages for the infraction of those rights and granted an injunction restraining Bloomberg from publishing information which further . .
See Also – Catt v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jan-2019
ECHR Judgment : Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life : First Section . .
Cited – Miller v The College of Policing CA 20-Dec-2021
Hate-Incident Guidance Inflexible and Unlawful
The central issue raised in the appeal is the lawfulness of certain parts of a document entitled the Hate Crime Operational Guidance (the Guidance). The Guidance, issued in 2014 by the College of Policing (the College), the respondent to this . .
Cited – Gallagher for Judicial Review (NI) SC 30-Jan-2019
Disclosure of older minor offences to employers 48 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information

Leading Case

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.543801

Transport for London (Other): ICO 8 Jul 2021

In a multi-part request, the complainant has requested information associated with a penalty charge notice he received. Transport for London (TfL) addressed each of the complainant’s questions, withholding the information requested in three of them under section 40(2) of the FOIA as it considered this to be the personal data of third persons. The complainant disputes TfL’s reliance on section 40(2) to withhold some of the information he has requested. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: TfL is entitled to rely on section 40(2) of the FOIA to withhold the information the complainant has requested in parts 4, 8 and 9 of his request. This information can be categorised as the personal data of third persons and disclosing it would not be lawful. TfL’s response breached section 10(1) and section 17(1) of the FOIA as it did not comply with section 1(1) or provide the complainant with a refusal notice within 20 working days of the request. The Commissioner does not require TfL to take any remedial steps.
FOI 17: Complaint upheld FOI 10: Complaint upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO ic-66578
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.669360

Department of Health and Social Care (Central Government): ICO 7 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to disclose the number and names of all key subcontractors employed by Serco and Sitel to work on NHS Test and Trace. The DHSC confirmed that Sitel does not use subcontractors. In respect of Serco it provided the number of subcontractors used but refused to disclose the names of these companies under section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC has failed to demonstrate sufficiently that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure under section 43 of the FOIA. The Commissioner therefore requires the DHSC to disclose the withheld information to the complainant.
FOI 43: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-83975
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.669624

Transport for London (Other): ICO 10 Sep 2019

The complainant requested information from Transport for London about all charges levied against a specific vehicle registration number and which had been billed to a named individual. The Commissioner’s decision is that Transport for London failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and therefore breached Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’). As a response has been issued, the Commissioner does not require Transport for London to take any further steps.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2019] UKICO fs50858469
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.643426

Cheshire West and Chester Council (Local Government): ICO 18 Oct 2021

The complainant has requested correspondence between Cheshire West and Chester Council (the council) and a publicly owned company, Edsential, regarding its decision to implement the local living wage to employees of the company. The council refused the request on the basis that the exemptions in sections 36(2), 42, 43(2) and section 44 applied. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council was correct to apply section 36(2) to withhold the information from disclosure. The Commissioner does not require the council to take any steps.
FOI 36: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-49636
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.669616

Liberty (The National Council of Civil Liberties) and Others v The Government Communications Headquarters and Others: IPT 22 Jun 2015

Burton P J, Robert Seabrook QC, Carr J, Christopher Gardner QC, Geoffrey Rivlin QC HHJ
[2015] UKIPTrib 13 – 77-H – 2
Bailii
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 68(4)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Belhadj and Others v The Security Service, SIS, GCHQ, Home Office and FCO IPT 7-Feb-2014
The Tribunal considered the Complainants’ application for interim relief in their case before it in the light of undertakings given by the Respondents. It also gave preliminary consideration to appropriate practice to be followed in the event a . .
Cited – Belhadj and Others v Security Service and Others (Including Determination) IPT 29-Apr-2015
The court considered the methods used for collection of information by the security services, and gave the following guidance: ‘(i) Whether in fact there has been, prior to 18 November 2014, soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Human Rights, Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549266

Brean Parish Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Jun 2011

The complainant asked for information relating to the terms and conditions of contracts placed by the Parish Council for various concessions. The Parish Council disclosed some of the information requested but withheld other information citing section 43(2) of the Act. The Commissioner’s decision in this case is that the withheld information is personal data and therefore the Commissioner, mindful of his role as the data protection regulator, has gone on to proactively apply section 40(2) to the withheld information and decided that disclosure of any of it would be unfair. The Commissioner has also recorded a procedural breach of section 17(3) in relation to the Parish Council’s handling of this request.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50301457
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.530506

Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 23 Nov 2010

The complainant submitted a request to Northumberland County Council for information from environmental records held on a property in Northumberland. The complainant specified that he wished to view the records in person. The Council agreed to provide the information requested but only on the provision of a set fee. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to comply with regulation 5(1) as it failed to make information available on request, and 5(2) as it failed to make information available within the statutory time for compliance. The Council also breached regulation 6(1) by failing to comply with the complainant’s request to make the information available in a particular format, and regulation 6(2)(c) by failing to inform the complainant of the enforcement and appeal provisions of the Act when refusing to provide information in the requested format. In addition, the Council breached regulation 14(3)(a) by failing to cite the specific exception it relied upon in withholding information. It also breached regulation 14(5)(a) by failing to make the complainant aware of his right to seek an internal review, and regulation 14(5)(b) by failing to make the complainant aware of the provisions for appeal and enforcement under the Act. The Commissioner requires the Council to make the requested information available for the complainant to inspect within 35 days of this notice.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 6 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2010] UKICO FER0317936
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.531796

Three Rivers District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Oct 2013

The complainant has requested the sum of money awarded to Three Rivers District Council in settlement of its claims against two companies. The council applied the exemption for information provided in confidence at section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the exemption is not engaged as the information was not provided by another party. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the requested settlement agreement.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 41 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50493492
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.528826

Brent Council (Decision Notice): ICO 29 Jun 2011

The complainant made a request for information to the London Borough of Brent (the Council). He had previously requested the same information to be sent to the ‘What Do They Know’ (WDTK) website where he has a personal account. The Council refused to respond to the complainant’s request on the WDTK website (the first request) and therefore he asked that the information he had requested be sent to his personal email address (the second request). In the meantime the complainant pursued his complaint about his WDTK request separately. The Council refused to respond to his second request stating that they would take no further action whilst his complaint regarding the first request was ongoing. The Commissioner finds that the second request was a valid request under section 8 of the Act and should have been responded to. In not responding, the Council breached sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50344505
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.530507

Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 17 Jun 2013

The complainant has requested information relating to a complaint he made to Northumberland County Council. The Council refused the request under section 40(2) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 40(2) in relation to third party personal information. The Commissioner also finds that the Council should have cited section 40(5) in relation to any information held which is or would be the complainant’s personal information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any further steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50475954
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.528381

Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 9 Jan 2013

The complainant has requested information regarding an alleged guarantee made by Northumberland County Council’s (the Council) predecessors to run a bus service between the towns of Alton and Haltwhistle. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council incorrectly refused the complainant’s request relying on sections 12 and 14. However, the Council subsequently disclosed the relevant information and the Commissioner decided that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information is held.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 12 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50428967
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.527864

Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice): ICO 31 Oct 2011

The complainant requested from Northumberland County Council information relating to the future operation of a bus service during a specified time period. The Council responded and provided the information it held. The complainant maintained that the Council held further information about the bus service and provided the Information Commissioner with copies of correspondence falling in scope which the Council had failed to disclose. The Information Commissioner has investigated and has decided that the Council did at one time hold information relevant to the request which it failed to disclose to the complainant. He is satisfied that the Council no longer holds this information and his reasons are set out in this notice. The Information Commissioner has concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the Council did not hold any further information beyond information which it provided to the complainant and the documentation which it failed to disclose but which no longer exists. The Council did, however, breach FOIA by responding to the request late and must ensure that this delay is not repeated in future. Information Tribunal appeal number EA/2011/0274 dismissed.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50384764
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.530999

X and East Lothian Council: SIC 26 May 2015

Cemetery maps showing sections and lairs – On 25 August 2014, Mr X asked East Lothian Council (the Council) for information about cemeteries and crematoria, including a photocopy of all cemetery maps (including churchyards) showing sections and lairs. The Council responded that it could not provide a photocopy of the cemetery maps because of the format in which they were held. The Council provided details of how a search for a particular lair could be facilitated. Following a review, Mr X remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that, in general, the Council had properly responded to Mr X’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. Although the Council was incorrect to state that it held no recorded information covered by the request, the Commissioner accepted that, for the most part, the Council did not hold the information in the format required by Mr X, and had explained why the information could not be provided in this format (as required by section 11(3) of FOISA). The Commissioner found that the Council had failed to locate and provide one cemetery map which could be photocopied, and required the Council to provide this information to Mr X.

[2015] ScotIC 066 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.548214

Baker and Glasgow City Council: SIC 26 May 2015

SIC Penalty Charge Notices for bus lanes: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 4 February 2015, Mr Baker asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information about weekly breakdowns of the number of Penalty Charge Notices issued for a specified bus lane. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Council failed to comply fully with Mr Baker’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 063 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.548213

Rona Hamilton and East Dunbartonshire Council: SIC 5 May 2015

SIC Specification of works: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 18 December 2014, Ms Hamilton asked East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) for information about the specification for work and materials on which previously-supplied cost information was based, in relation to works to be carried out at a Primary School. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to requirement for review within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs).
The Commissioner has ordered the Council to comply with the requirement for review.

[2015] ScotIC 061 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.548216

Transport for London (Other): ICO 11 Nov 2019

The complainant made a freedom of information request for the schedule of rates for damage repairs. The Transport for London (TfL) refused the request under the section 43(2) (commercial interests) exemption. The Commissioner’s decision is that section 43(2) was correctly applied and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 43: Complaint not upheld

[2019] UKICO fs50848643
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.650372

Brighton and Hove City Council (Local Government): ICO 14 Sep 2021

The complainant requested information about injury awards for police officers. Bedfordshire Police provided some information within the scope of the request, but refused to provide the number of police officers granted an injury award for specified years (part 2 of the request), citing section 40(2) of FOIA, the exemption for personal information. The complainant’s complaint focused only on the section 40(2) refusal. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, Bedfordshire Police partly revised its position in that it said it did not hold information for the years 2018/19 or 2019/20, but maintained that section 40(2) applied to the information it held for 2017/18. The Commissioner’s decision is that Bedfordshire Police has correctly relied on section 40(2) in the circumstances of this case. She also finds on the balance of probabilities, that Bedfordshire Police does not hold the requested information for the years 2018/19 or 2019/20 for the reasons set out in this notice. No steps are required as a result of this notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2021/0274 under appeal.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-118008
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.669492

West Midlands Combined Authority (Other): ICO 8 Sep 2021

The complainant requested information from West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) relating to the business case for Coventry’s all-electric city bus plan. By the date of this notice, WMCA had not provided a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that WMCA has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires WMCA to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. – Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. WMCA must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-119872
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.669601

Allerdale Borough Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 10 Nov 2016

The complainant has requested a copy of the Cumbria County Council report into Allerdale and the 2012 allegations of corruption and related information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Allerdale Borough Council has correctly applied the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA. She does not require the public authority to take any steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
FOI 40: Not upheld

[2016] UKICO FS50632853
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.572929

Evans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General: SC 26 Mar 2015

The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been free to rely upon section 53 to issue a certificate avoiding the requirement to disclose the correspondence. He was not free to override the conclusion of the tribunal or the court on the sole ground that he disagreed with it. Such a view would override two constututional principles; that a decision of a court is binding between the parties and cannot be set aside, and that decisions and actions of the executive are reviewable by the courts, and not vice versa.,
Regulation 18(6) was incompatible with the European Directive.
Otherwise R (Evans) v Attorney General (Campaign for Freedom of Information intervening)

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes
[2015] UKSC 21, [2015] 2 WLR 813, [2015] WLR(D) 151, [2015] 4 All ER 395, [2015] 1 AC 1787, [2015] 2 CMLR 43, [2015] FSR 26, [2015] Env LR 34, UKSC 2014/0137
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, WLRD
Freedom of Information Act 2000 53(2), Council Directive 2003/4/EC, Environmental Information Regulations 2004
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Evans v The Information Commissioner and Others CA 12-Mar-2014
Mr Evans had sought release under the 2000 Act of leers from the Prince of Wales to variou government ministers. The Upper Tribunal had allowed his appeal aganst refusal, but the Attorney had then issued a certificate that in his opinion, the . .
At UTAA – Evans v Information Commissioner UTAA 18-Sep-2012
The claimant journalist had requested copies of correspondence between Prince Charles and assorted public bodies.
Held: ‘The Upper Tribunal allows the appeals by Mr Evans. A further decision identifying information to be disclosed to Mr Evans, . .
At Admn – Evans, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Attorney General and Another Admn 9-Jul-2013
The claimant had requested disclosure of correspondence between Prince Charles and assorted government departments. It had been refused, the Attorney General issuing a certificate under section 53(2) after the Upper tribunal had allowed the . .
Cited – Rex v Cheltenham Commissioners QBD 1841
A statute provided that any decision of the Quarter Sessions as to the levying of certain rates was to be ‘final, binding, and conclusive to all intents and purposes whatsoever’, and that no order made in that connection ‘shall . . be removed or . .
Cited – Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission HL 17-Dec-1968
There are no degrees of nullity
The plaintiffs had owned mining property in Egypt. Their interests were damaged and or sequestrated and they sought compensation from the Respondent Commission. The plaintiffs brought an action for the declaration rejecting their claims was a . .
Cited – In re Racal Communications Ltd; In Re a Company HL 3-Jul-1980
Court of Appeal’s powers limited to those Given
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is wholly statutory; it is appellate only. The court has no original jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction itself to entertain any original application for judicial review; it has appellate jurisdiction over . .
Cited – M v Home Office and Another; In re M HL 27-Jul-1993
A Zairian sought asylum, but his application, and an application for judicial review were rejected. He was notified that he was to be returned to Zaire, but then issued new proceedings for judicial review. The judge said that his removal should be . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson HL 24-Jul-1997
The Home Secretary may not later extend the tariff for a lifer, after it had been set by an earlier Home Secretary, merely to satisfy needs of retribution and deterrence: ‘A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to . .
Cited – Regina v Warwickshire County Council ex parte Powergen Plc CA 31-Jul-1997
The council as highway authority had objected to a development on the grounds of road safety. The application was subsequently approved by the Secretary of State, but the Council sought to maintain its safety objection.
Held: The highway . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Danaei CA 12-Nov-1997
An immigration adjudicator, after a hearing, had rejected the applicant’s asylum appeal, but accepted that he had left Iran because he had had an adulterous relationship;
Held: The Home Secretary was wrong to depart from the special . .
Cited – Birkett v The Department for The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 21-Dec-2011
. .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – Jackson and others v Attorney General HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant sought to challenge the 2004 Hunting Act, saying that it had been passed under the provisions of the 1949 Parliament Act which was itself an unlawful extension of the powers given by the 1911 Parliament Act to allow the House of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Majera, Regina (on The Application of v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 20-Oct-2021
The Court was asked whether the Government can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the order. The appellant had been . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information, European, Constitutional

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.545694

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Other): ICO 7 Apr 2020

The applicant has requested contact details of organisations that have paid a levy to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB). The Commissioner’s decision is that AHDB has correctly cited section 40(2) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 40: Complaint not upheld

[2020] UKICO fs50883394
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.651497

Cheshire West and Chester Council (Local Government): ICO 13 Apr 2021

The complainant has requested information about local overbridge works in Helsby. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cheshire West and Chester Council has breached regulations 5(2) and 11(4) by failing to respond to the request within 20 working days, and a review of response within 40 working days. As the Council has now responded to the request and undertaken a review, no steps are required.
EIR 11(4): Complaint upheld EIR 5(2): Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-66697
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.662918

London Borough of Tower Hamlets (Local Government): ICO 14 Sep 2021

The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (‘the Council’) relating to emergency COVID-19 grants received by the Council. By the date of this notice, the Council had not provided a substantive response to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. – Issue a substantive response to the request in accordance with its obligations under the FOIA. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 10: Complaint upheld

[2021] UKICO IC-121604
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.669558

Durham Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 22 Jul 2021

The complainant has requested from Durham Constabulary information about its investigation into Dominic Cummings’ trip to Durham to self isolate, in March 2020. Durham Constabulary disclosed some information but withheld the investigation report, citing the non-disclosure exemptions at sections 30(1)(a)(i) (Investigations and proceedings) and 40(2) (Personal information) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Durham Constabulary was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a)(i) to withhold the investigation report.
FOI 30: Complaint not upheld

[2021] UKICO ic-66327
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.669309

AB, Regina (on The Application of) v The Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary: Admn 20 May 2015

The court considered the lawfulness of the disclosure, by the police to a Local Authority Designated Officer, of non-conviction material relating to alleged sexual misconduct by a teacher, and the subsequent dismissal of a complaint concerning the disclosure under the Police Reform Act 2002.

Jeremy Barker J
[2015] EWHC 1238 (Admin), [2015] 1 WLR 5250, [2015] WLR(D) 225
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Police, Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546992

Dransfield v The Information Commissioner: CA 14 May 2015

Appeals raised the question of the scope of the power of a public authority to reject a request under the 2000 Act and, in addition, under the 2004 Regulations on the grounds that the request was ‘vexatious’ and ‘manifestly unreasonable’.
Held: The claimant’s appeals were dismissd. The court gave guidance as to the exercise of the discretion given to authorities in rejecting information requests as vexatious or manifestly unreasonable.
The Acts had disapplied for this purpose a fundamental proposition of law, namely that a bad motive for exercising a right would not invalidate its exercise. An authority should use an objective standard. With the starting point that vexatiousness would principally involve making a request with no reasonable foundation for thinking that the information sought would be of value to the requester, or to the public or any section thereof. Parliament had chosen a strong word which therefore meant that the hurdle of satisfying it was a high one, which was consistent with the constitutional nature of the right.

Arden, Gloster, Macur LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 454, [2015] WLR(D) 215, [2016] 3 All ER 221, [2016] Env LR 9, [2015] 1 WLR 5316
Bailii, WLRD
Freedom of Information Act 2000, Environmental Information Regulations 2004
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mayor of Bradford v Pickles HL 29-Jul-1895
The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the defendant interfering with the supply of water to the city. He would have done so entirely by actions on his own land.
Held: The plaintiffs could have no property in the water until it came on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546768

Gaughran v Chief Constable of The Police Service of Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland): SC 13 May 2015

The court was asked as to to the right of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to retain personal information and data lawfully obtained from the appellant following his arrest for the offence of driving with excess alcohol.
Held: The appeal failed. The reference to Marper at ECHR was of limited value, since the consideration was clearly only of the position of an unconvicted person. It had however recognised that the interference was at a low level.
The level of offence was a relevant consideration, and the choice had been made to set this at the level of a recordable offence.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption
[2015] UKSC 29, [2015] WLR(D) 214, [2015] 2 WLR 1303, [2016] AC 345, [2015] 2 WLR 1303, [2015] WLR(D) 214, [2015] Crim LR 809, [2015] 3 All ER 655, [2015] NI 55, UKSC 2013/0090
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Cited – S, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
Cited – Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Cited – Marper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
Appeal from – Gaughran, Re Judicial Review QBNI 13-Nov-2012
The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal by the Police Service of Northern Ireland to remove records of his fingerprint, a photograph and DNA sample and profiles which had been collected when he was stopped on suspicion of driving wih . .
Cited – Frette v France ECHR 26-Feb-2002
A single homosexual man complained that the respondent state had made it impossible for him to adopt a child.
Held: The claim was within the ambit of article 8 as regards respect for family life, but the court dismissed the claim under article . .
Cited – Goodwin v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jul-2002
The claimant was a post operative male to female trans-sexual. She claimed that her human rights were infringed when she was still treated as a man for National Insurance contributions purposes, where she continued to make payments after the age at . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Cited – GC v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis SC 18-May-2011
The court was asked to decide from whom DNA samples could lawfully be taken by the Police,and for how long they should be kept. The first respondent now said that a declaration of incompatibility of section 64(1A) could not be avoided.
Held: . .
Cited – Animal Defenders International v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Apr-2013
ECHR (Grand Chamber) Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Refusal of permission for non-governmental organisation to place television advert owing to statutory prohibition of political advertising: no . .
Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited – Nicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) SC 25-Jun-2014
Criminality of Assisting Suicide not Infringing
The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to . .

Cited by:
Cited – NT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information, Human Rights

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546543

Amir Aryan Manesh and Glasgow City Council: SIC 17 Apr 2015

SIC Flooding of a property: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 6 January 2015, Mr Manesh asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information about requests and correspondence sent to the Council in connection with flooding to his property. The decision finds that the Council failed to comply with Mr Manesh’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs).
The Commissioner has ordered the Council to comply with the requirement for review.

[2015] ScotIC 052 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546445

Forbes and Transport Scotland: SIC 17 Apr 2015

On 16 October 2014, Mr Forbes asked Transport Scotland for information which would show the content and detail of any discussions between the Scottish Government and Network Rail on the subject of the refurbishment of Prestwick Airport Station. Transport Scotland failed to respond and Mr Forbes asked for a review. Following a review, in which Transport Scotland disclosed some information, but withheld other information, Mr Forbes remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that Transport Scotland had properly responded to Mr Forbes’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA and the EIRs. The Commissioner accepted that information was correctly withheld under regulation 10(5)(f) of the EIRs and that Transport Scotland had identified all the information it held that fell within the scope of the request.

[2015] ScotIC 054 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546448

Howarth and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 29 Apr 2015

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) sections 1(1) and (6) (General entitlement); 2(1)(a) and (2)(e)(ii) (Effect of exemptions); 38(1)(b), (2)(a)(i) and (2)(b) and (5) (definition of ‘the data protection principles’, ‘data subject’ and ‘personal data’) (Personal information)
Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) sections 1(1) (Basic interpretative provisions) (definition of personal data); 2 (Sensitive personal data); (3) (The special purposes); Schedules 1 (The data protection principles) (the first data protection principle); 3 (Conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: processing of sensitive personal data) (conditions 1, 5 and 10).
Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2000 (Circumstances in which Sensitive Personal Data may be processed – paragraph 3)
The full text of each of the statutory provisions cited above is reproduced in Appendix 1 to this decision. The Appendix forms part of this decision.

[2015] ScotIC 058 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546447

Milligan and Glasgow City Council: SIC 17 Apr 2015

Whether a request was vexatious – On 27 October 2014, Mr James Milligan asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information relating to parking restriction signs in a specified area.
The Council did not respond to Mr Milligan’s request and informed him that it was not obliged to comply with his subsequent requirement for review. This was on the basis that it considered his request to be vexatious and it considered it had already given notice to this effect in relation to a previous identical or substantially similar request.
The Commissioner did not accept that the request was vexatious and found that the Council was not entitled to refuse to give notice to Mr Milligan to this effect in terms of section 16(5) of FOISA.
She required the Council to comply with Mr Milligan’s requirement for review.

[2015] ScotIC 055 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546446

Northumberland County Council (Decision Notice) FS50381566: ICO 21 Sep 2011

The complainant made a request for information to Northumberland County Council relating to proposals to install bus stops. The request contained a number of points. In relation to point 1 of the request, the council said that it could neither confirm nor deny whether the information was held and it cited the exemption under section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In relation to points 1.1, 2 and 2.1 of the request, the council said that it did not hold the information. In relation to points 3 to 3.4 and 4, the council provided a written response. The Commissioner investigated and decided that the request should have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 rather than the FOIA. The Commissioner found that the authority had breached regulation 14(2) and 14(3)(a) of the EIR but that it had otherwise complied with its obligations under the EIR. He requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: EIR 9 – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50381566
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.530878

Croydon London Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 20 Jun 2011

The complainant asked the Council to release detailed account information relating to the funding it received for the Croydon Local Involvement Network (LINK). He required information which detailed how the funding had been spent by Croydon Voluntary Action (CVA); the organisation contracted by the Council to host the LINK. The Council responded confirming that it only holds the annual accounts produced by CVA and it does not hold information which provides a more detailed breakdown of the expenditure of the LINK funding. As the complainant remained dissatisfied, he approached the Commissioner. The Commissioner made enquiries to the Council to establish exactly what information it does hold which falls within the scope of the request. The Commissioner is satisfied that the Council only holds the information already provided to the complainant and that on the balance of probabilities the Council does not hold the more detailed account information the complainant requires. He therefore requires no further action to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50352694
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.530527

Hambleton District Council (Decision Notice): ICO 7 Nov 2013

The complainant has requested information from Hambleton District Council (the council) with regards to the names of councillors whose broadband is paid for by the council and the cost to the council. The council provided some information but refused to provide the names of the councillor’s, relying on section 40(2) of the FOIA. However during the Commissioner’s investigation the council changed its response to provide all of the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it did not provide all of the requested information within the required 20 working days from the receipt of the request. As the council has now provided the information, the Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld

[2013] UKICO FS50499286
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.528881

Department of The Environment Northern Ireland (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Jun 2011

The complainant asked the public authority to provide information relating to a disciplinary investigation into a named member of staff. The public authority refused to disclose the information relying on section 40(2) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the public authority should have refused to confirm or deny whether it held the information falling within the scope of the request, citing the exemption provided by section 40(5)(b)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Commissioner finds that confirmation or denial would disclose personal data and that the disclosure of this personal data would be in breach of the first data protection principle. The exemption provided by section 40(5)(b)(i) is therefore engaged and the public authority is not required to take any steps. The complaint is not upheld.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50280288
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.530537

Bury Metropolitan Borough Council (Decision Notice): ICO 27 Jun 2011

The complainant requested information about various matters relating to a meeting of the public authority’s members Standards Assessment Sub-committee. Some information was disclosed, but some was refused under the provisions of section 44(1)(a) of the Act, namely that disclosure was prohibited under another enactment. The Commissioner finds that the statutory bar provided at section 63 of the Local Government Act 2000 applies to most of the withheld information and therefore section 44 was correctly applied. Some information was incorrectly withheld, and the Commissioner finds breaches of section 44, section 1, section 10 and section 17 of the Act. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 10 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, FOI 44 – Complaint Partly Upheld

[2011] UKICO FS50351602
Bailii
England and Wales

Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.530508

Bridges, Regina (on The Application of) v South Wales Police: CA 11 Aug 2020

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD and Lord Justice Singh
[2020] EWCA Civ 1058, [2021] 2 All ER 1121, [2020] 1 WLR 5037, [2020] HRLR 16, [2021] 1 Cr App R 4
Bailii, Bailii Summary
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Bridges, Regina (on Application of) v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police Admn 4-Sep-2019
The court was asked whether the current legal regime in the United Kingdom is adequate to ensure the appropriate and non-arbitrary use of Automated Facial Recognition technology in a free and civilized society. At the heart of this case lies a . .
Cited – S, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .

Cited by:
Cited – Rowley, Regina (on The Application of) v Minister for The Cabinet Office Admn 28-Jul-2021
Failure to Provide Signers was Discriminatory
The claimant challenged the failure of the respondent to provide sign language interpreters to accompany public service broadcasts during the Covid pandemic. The parties agreed that the steps taken for later broadcasts had satisfied the . .
Cited – Miller v The College of Policing CA 20-Dec-2021
Hate-Incident Guidance Inflexible and Unlawful
The central issue raised in the appeal is the lawfulness of certain parts of a document entitled the Hate Crime Operational Guidance (the Guidance). The Guidance, issued in 2014 by the College of Policing (the College), the respondent to this . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.653063