Category: Information

M, Regina (on The Application of) v The Chief Constable of Sussex Police and Another: Admn 15 Apr 2019

The defendant shared information about the claimant, a vulnerable 16 year old girl, with the local Business Crime Reduction Partnership, which had then excluded her from its members premises.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 975 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Data Protection Act 2018

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Police, Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.636095

Treasury Solicitors (Central Government): ICO 16 Mar 2015

The complainant requested the number of times an employee of the Treasury Solicitor’s Department (TSol) accused people of making fraudulent claims for money. TSol confirmed that some relevant information was held. The Commissioner’s decision is that TSol should have instead refused the request under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and neither confirmed or denied whether any relevant information was held. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0076 dismissed.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50537142

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.555258

Leicestershire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 10 Feb 2015

The complainant requested information relating to the suspension of staff. Leicestershire Police failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so Leicestershire Police breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner requires Leicestershire Police to respond to request. Leicestershire Police 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568221

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.555105

Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 23 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested information about a police officer from the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’). The MPS initially refused to confirm or deny whether it holds the information citing section 40(5) (personal information) of the FOIA. During the Commissioner’s investigation it changed its position to section 40(2). The Commissioner’s decision is that section 40(2) is properly engaged. He does not require any steps.
FOI 40: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50562023

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.555070

Leicestershire Police (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 11 Feb 2015

The complainant requested information relating to policing of football matches within the Leicestershire Police area. Leicestershire Police failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so it breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires Leicestershire Police to respond to the request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50567652

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.555104

Crown Prosecution Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 16 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested information in relation to his court case. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Crown Prosecution Service has applied section 30(1)(c) appropriately. The Commissioner does not require the Crown Prosecution Service to take any steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 30: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50554067

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.555289

Department for Work and Pensions (Central Government): ICO 30 Apr 2015

The complainant requested information regarding mortality of claimants in the context of Incapacity Benefit and Employment and Support Allowance state benefits. The Department for Work and Pensions relied on section 22 to withhold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Department for Work and Pensions has incorrectly applied section 22 to withhold requested information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to release the withheld information. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0126 withdrawn.
FOI 22: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50557638

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.555299

Independent Police Complaints Commission (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 2 Feb 2015

The complainant requested information relating to an investigation being carried out by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so the IPCC breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Commissioner requires the IPCC respond to the request. The IPCC 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 FOIA and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50566848

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.555098

Coal Authority (Central Government): ICO 23 Feb 2015

The complainant requested diverse mining data from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority relies on regulations 8, 12 (5) (c) and 13 to withhold requested information, from the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Coal Authority incorrectly relied on the said regulations to withhold requested information, save for some requested information which was lawfully withheld from the complainant by virtue of regulation 13. The Commissioner requires the public authority to release to the complainant the requested information which it holds, save for the property address and postcode as per Request 3 which is to be withheld, and to do so in accordance with regulation 8.
EIR 8: Partly upheld EIR 12(5)(c): Not upheld EIR 13: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0532025

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.555067

National Archives (Central Government): ICO 29 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested access to information contained in a closed file at The National Archives (TNA). TNA withheld the information under section 37(1)(a), the exemption relating to communications with the Sovereign, section 40(2) – third party personal data, and section 41 – information provided in confidence. The Commissioner’s decision is that TNA has correctly withheld the requested information by virtue of section 37(1)(a). The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken as a result of this decision notice.
FOI 37: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568624

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.555337

The Royal Mint (Other): ICO 29 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested information from The Royal Mint about UK and overseas retail trade sales of commemorative coins. The Royal Mint has disclosed some information falling within the scope of the request and in respect of the remainder of the information has refused to disclose it citing FOIA section 43 – Commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that The Royal Mint has correctly engaged the exemption at section 43. He notes however that some of the information was disclosed outside of the statutory time limit and accordingly The Royal Mint has breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require The Royal Mint to take any further steps. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Tribunal.
FOI 10: Upheld FOI 43: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558253

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.555353

OFQUAL (Decision Notice): ICO 12 Feb 2014

The complainant requested information about Ofqual’s subject experts. Ofqual withheld the information, citing the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) as its basis for doing so. The Commissioner’s decision is that Ofqual has correctly applied this exemption and does not need to take any further action.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2014] UKICO FS50508627

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.527505

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Decision Notice): ICO 15 Nov 2012

ICO The complainant has requested information relating to the business engagements of Her Majesty’s Revenues and Customs (HMRC) board members during the three financial years ending 31 March 2011 and in the period 1 April 2011 to the present time. HMRC refused to comply with the request as it viewed the request to be vexatious. HMRC cited section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as its grounds for refusal. The Commissioner’s decision is that HMRC has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA and that the request is vexatious. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps in this matter.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld

Citations:

[2012] UKICO FS50458562

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.530015

The Applicant and Office of The Scottish Charity Regulator: SIC 11 Jan 2019

Anti-Sexual Abuse Policy : For authority – OSCR was asked for its anti-sexual abuse policy and associated complaints procedure. OSCR responded, advising that it did not hold the information requested but gave advice and assistance on generic HR policies which would be considered applicable in the circumstances.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted this.

Citations:

[2019] ScotIC 002 – 2019

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.635844

The Royal Mint (Other): ICO 19 Mar 2015

The complainant requested all electronic communications between the public authority and Treasury officials in relation to the development of the new pounds 1 coin to be introduced in 2017. The Commissioner’s decision is that, the public authority was entitled to withhold all of the information held within the scope of the request on the basis of the exemptions at section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) FOIA. The public authority breached sections 17(1) and (1)(b), 17(3)(b) and 17(7) FOIA. No steps required.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 17: Upheld FOI 36: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50558719

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.555249

HM Revenue and Customs (Central Government): ICO 8 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to incoming telephone calls handled by HMRC, statistics, policies and procedures. HMRC failed to respond to this request for information and the Commissioner’s decision is that in doing so HMRC breached sections 1(1) and 10(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires HMRC to respond to the request.
FOI 1: Upheld FOI 10: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50568897

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.555312

Commissioner of The Metropolitan Police Service (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 30 Apr 2015

The complainant has requested various details about people that the Metropolitan Police Service (the ‘MPS’) has ‘taken back’ to its Stoke Newington Police Station. The MPS advised that to comply with the request would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MPS was correct to do so and he requires no steps to be taken.
FOI 12: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50570032

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.555284

Thurrock Council (Local Government (Borough Council)): ICO 10 Mar 2015

The complainant requested information relating to council tax from Thurrock Council (the Council). The Council provided some information and stated that nothing further was held. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation further information was provided to the complainant. The Commissioner’s decision is that it is likely on the balance of probabilities that the Council has now provided the complainant with all of the relevant information it held when the request was made. However, in responding to the complainant’s request the Council breached sections 10 and 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2014/0172 disposed of by consent.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50552078

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.555257

Environment Agency (Central Government): ICO 12 Feb 2015

The complainant has requested information relating to the destination of fracking wastes for specific sites. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Environment Agency (EA) has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR to all the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
EIR 12(5)(a): Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FER0545269

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.555083

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Central Government): ICO 3 Feb 2015

The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for a copy of the file it held concerning the Birthday Honours List for 1974. The FCO argued that the information was exempt from disclosure under section 23(1) (security bodies) or in the alternative section 24(1) (national security) of FOIA. It also sought to apply the exemptions contained at sections 37(1)(b) (honours) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner has concluded that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 37(1)(b) of FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.
FOI 37: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50556806

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.555089

Hampshire Constabulary (Police and Criminal Justice): ICO 17 Feb 2015

The complainant requested speed camera policies, procedures and standards with which Hampshire Constabulary complies. Hampshire Constabulary disclosed some information, but the complainant did not accept that this was all the relevant information that the Constabulary held. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hampshire Constabulary breached section 1(1)(a) of the FOIA as further information has come to light that was not taken into account by the Constabulary previously. Hampshire Constabulary is now required to issue a fresh response to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner requires Hampshire Constabulary to issue a fresh response to the complainant that covers the two documents referred to below at paragraph 20. This information should either be disclosed, or the complainant given a written explanation of under which provision of the FOIA this information is being withheld.
FOI 1: Upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50552404

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.555096

Salford City Council (Local Government (City Council)): ICO 7 Apr 2015

The complainant submitted six requests to Salford City Council (the Council) for information relating to council tax and the Mayor of Salford. The Council refused the requests as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests are vexatious. No further action is required.
FOI 14: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50549846

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.555354

Ministry of Defence (Central Government): ICO 7 Apr 2015

The complainant has submitted two requests to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about atomic bombs tests which took place in 1958. The MOD explained that it did not hold information falling within the scope of the first request albeit that it had located some information which may fall within the scope of request 2 and it provided the complainant with an annotated version of this. The complainant disputed that the MOD’s position that it did hold any information falling with the scope of request 1 and also argued that the information provided was not relevant to request 2, albeit that he believed that the MOD was likely to hold some information of relevance falling within the scope of that request. The Commissioner has concluded that the information initially provided to the complainant does not fall within the scope of request 2. Furthermore, the Commissioner has concluded that the MOD does not, on the balance of probabilities, hold any information falling within the scope of either request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2015/0096 dismissed.
FOI 1: Not upheld

Citations:

[2015] UKICO FS50559600

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.555336

PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others: SC 19 Jul 2017

No anonymity for investigation suspect

The claimant had been investigated on an allegation of historic sexual abuse. He had never been charged, but the investigation had continued with others being convicted in a high profile case. He appealed from refusal of orders restricting publication of his name and involvement in the inquiry.
Held: (Kerr and Wilson LL dissenting) The appeal failed. PNM did not seek that the trial should be conducted in such a way as to protect his identity, but to restrict its reporting, however fair or accurate, of certain matters which were discussed at a public trial. These were not matters in respect of which PNM can have had any reasonable expectation of privacy. There would be an undoubted and possible serious effect on PNM’s family: ‘But whether that be so or not, the impact on PNM’s family life of what was said about him at the trial is no different in kind from the impact of many disagreeable statements which may be made about individuals at a high profile criminal trial. A defendant at such a trial may be acquitted, possibly on an issue of admissibility, after bruising disclosures have been made about him at the trial. Within the limits of professional propriety, a witness may have his integrity attacked in cross-examination. He may be accused by other witnesses of lying or even of having committed the offence himself. All of these matters may be exposed in public under the cloak of the absolute immunity of counsel and witnesses from civil liability, and reported under the protection of the absolute privilege from liability for defamation for fair, accurate and contemporaneous publication. The immunity and the privilege reflect the law’s conviction that the collateral impact that this process has on those affected is part of the price to be paid for open justice and the freedom of the press to report fairly and accurately on judicial proceedings held in public.’
Lords Kerr and Wilson said that the asserted prresumption that members of the public would understand that a person arrested but not charged should be presumed innocent, was without authority and: ‘against the public interest that the proposed piece about section 4(2) would be considerably more engaging and meaningful, this court needed first to recognise the risk to PNM that his identification would generate a widespread belief not only that he was guilty of crimes which understandably attract an extreme degree of public outrage but also that he had so far evaded punishment for them; and then, in consequence, to balance the risk of profound harm to the reputational, social, emotional and even physical aspects of his private and family life, notwithstanding that he is presumed by the law to be innocent and has had no opportunity to address in public the offences of which at one time the police suspected him to be guilty.
At the end of this only interim inquiry, our view is that the scales have descended heavily in favour of PNM’s rights under article 8; that he was likely to have established his right to an injunction against identification at full trial; and, with great respect to our colleagues, that they are wrong today to be dismissing his appeal.’
Lord Sumption said: ‘A party is entitled to invoke the right of privacy to protect his reputation but, as I have explained, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to proceedings in open court. The only claim available to PNM is based on the adverse impact on his family life which will follow indirectly from the damage to his reputation. It is clear that in an action for defamation no injunction would issue to prevent the publication of a fair and accurate report of what was said about PNM in the proceedings. It would be both privileged and justified. In the context of the publication of proceedings in open court, it would be incoherent for the law to refuse an injunction to prevent damage to PNM’s reputation directly, while granting it to prevent the collateral impact on his family life in precisely the same circumstances.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 49, [2017] WLR(D) 490, [2017] EMLR 29, [2017] 3 WLR 351, UKSC 2014/0270, [2019] AC 161, [2017] WLR(D) 673, [2018] 1 Cr App R 1

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD (490), SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC Video 17/01/2017 am, SC Video 17/01/2017 pm, SC Video 18/01/2017 am, WLRD

Statutes:

Contempt of Court Act 1981 4(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At first instance – PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others QBD 22-Oct-2013
The claimant had been arrested on allegations of serious child sex abuse. The court now considered an application for a continuation or cancellation of an interim non-disclosure order.
Held: The application for a non-disclosure order was . .
Appeal from – PNM v Times Newspapers Ltd and Others CA 1-Aug-2014
The claimant sought a privacy order after being accused of historical serious sexual offences against children.
Held: The judge had properly acted within the range of his discretion, and the appeal was dismissed. The judgment would however . .
Cited – Scott v Scott HL 5-May-1913
Presumption in Favour of Open Proceedings
There had been an unauthorised dissemination by the petitioner to third parties of the official shorthand writer’s notes of a nullity suit which had been heard in camera. An application was made for a committal for contempt.
Held: The House . .
Cited – B v The United Kingdom; P v The United Kingdom ECHR 24-Apr-2001
The procedures in English law which provided for privacy for proceedings involving children did not in general infringe the human right to family life, nor the right to a public hearing. Where relatives more distant than immediate parties were . .
Cited – Regina v Socialist Worker Printers and Publishers Ltd, Ex parte Attorney-General CA 1974
In a blackmail case, the court ordered non publication of the names of the complainants. Thinking they were not bound, the defendants published the names.
Held: The publishers and Mr Michael Foot were held to be in contempt of court in . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd HL 1-Feb-1979
The appellants were magazines and journalists who published, after committal proceedings, the name of a witness, a member of the security services, who had been referred to as Colonel B during the hearing. An order had been made for his name not to . .
Cited – Doorson v The Netherlands ECHR 26-Mar-1996
Evidence was given in criminal trials by anonymous witnesses and evidence was also read as a result of a witness having appeared at the trial but then absconded. The defendant was convicted of drug trafficking. As regards the anonymous witnesses, . .
Cited – V v The United Kingdom; T v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1999
The claimant challenged to the power of the Secretary of State to set a tariff where the sentence was imposed pursuant to section 53(1). The setting of the tariff was found to be a sentencing exercise which failed to comply with Article 6(1) of the . .
Cited – In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) HL 28-Oct-2004
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity
The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to . .
Cited – In re Guardian News and Media Ltd and Others; HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
Proceedings had been brought to challenge the validity of Orders in Council which had frozen the assets of the claimants in those proceedings. Ancillary orders were made and confirmed requiring them not to be identified. As the cases came to the . .
Cited – Edmonton Journal v Alberta (Attorney General) 1989
Supreme Court of Canada – The court made orders for anonymisation of parties to proceedings to protect them from from embarrassment or humiliation.
Wilson J said: ‘It is difficult to imagine a guaranteed right more important to a democratic . .
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 – Independent Publishing Company Limited v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, The Director of Public Prosecutions PC 8-Jun-2004
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The newspapers had been accused of contempt of court having reported matters in breach of court orders, and the editors committed to prison after a summary hearing: ‘In deciding whether . .
Cited – Von Hannover v Germany ECHR 24-Jun-2004
Princess Caroline of Monaco who had, at some time, received considerable attention in the media throughout Europe, complained at the publication of photographs taken of her withour her permission.
Held: There was no doubt that the publication . .
Cited – Trinity Mirror and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Croydon Crown Court CACD 1-Feb-2008
The defendant had pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to 20 counts of making or possessing child pornography. No direction was made for withholding the defendant’s identity in court, but the Crown Court made an order in the interest of the defendant’s . .
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Cited – A v British Broadcasting Corporation (Scotland) SC 8-May-2014
Anonymised Party to Proceedings
The BBC challenged an order made by the Court of Session in judicial review proceedings, permitting the applicant review to delete his name and address and substituting letters of the alphabet, in the exercise (or, as the BBC argues, purported . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 27-Jan-2016
The applicant was a convicted murderer who had been held in a high security mental hospital. His application for unescorted leave had been refused, and he wished to challenge the decisions. Anonymity in the subsequent proceedings had been refused to . .
Cited – BG and Others v HMTQ 7-Oct-2002
Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Court prohibited, until the conclusion of the proceedings, identification of school staff accused of abusing boys in an action brought by them in later life against the school.
Held: The protection of . .
Cited – BG and Others v HMTQ in Right of BC 22-Jun-2004
Court of Appeal fro British Columbia – Teachers had been accused of historical sexual abuse. An order was made for their anonymisation pending conclusion of those civil proceedings. The proceedings had now been dismissed. The Court now considered . .
Cited – Regina v Henry 26-Feb-2009
British Columbia – Court of Appeal – The Court had granted permission to Mr Henry to reopen his appeal against conviction for offences of sexual assault. His case was to be that Mr X, who had already been convicted of other assaults, had instead . .
Cited – Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council v M and Others FC 25-Oct-2016
Rotherham had made a teenage girl a ward of court and had obtained interim injunctions that four named men should not associate with her. It alleged that they had been sexually exploiting her. None of the four came to be charged with any offence but . .

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 . .
Cited – Richard v The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another ChD 18-Jul-2018
Police suspect has outweighable Art 8 rights
Police (the second defendant) had searched the claimant’s home in his absence in the course of investigating allegations of historic sexual assault. The raid was filmed and broadcast widely by the first defendant. No charges were brought against the . .
Cited – Sarker, Regina v CACD 13-Jun-2018
The defendant was to face trial under the 2006 Act. He applied for an order under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act postponing the reporting of the proceedings on the grounds that knowledge by the jury of the inquiry and police investigation would be . .
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 . .
Cited – Gallagher v Gallagher (No 1) (Reporting Restrictions) FC 13-Jun-2022
Private Hearings are Not in Secret
H sought an order restricting reporting of the divorce financial remedy proceedings, or an anonymity order.
Held: The application was refused save as to identification of the children, and certain tax matters. The a hearing was listed as in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Media, Human Rights, Information, Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.590447

BBC (Other): ICO 14 Mar 2019

The complainant has requested information from the BBC associated with the journalist John Sweeney. The BBC considers that the requested information is not caught by the FOIA as it is held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information is held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and does not fall within the scope of FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
FOI 1: Complaint not upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKICO fs50822221

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Information

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.635051