The defendants had been charged with recklessly holding and then disclosing information about named individuals. It had exchanged a list of potential addressee’s for use in mailing lists with another charity.
Held: Recklessness is defined by reference to the defendant’s foresight of the consequences as listed in the section, rather than the degree of harm to the data subject. The magistrate had confused the seriousness of the consequences of the breach with the breach itself. The appeal against the dismissal of the charges failed. To establish recklessness, the prosecution ‘must prove first that there is something in the circumstances that would have drawn the attention of an ordinary, prudent individual to the possibility that this act was capable of causing the kind of mischief that sections 5(2) and 5(5) are intended to prevent and that the risk of those mischiefs occurring was not so slight that the ordinary, prudent individual would feel justified in regarding them as negligible. Secondly the prosecution must prove that before doing the act, the defendant either failed to give any thought to the possibility of their being such a risk, or, having recognised that there was such a risk, he nevertheless went on to do it.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Scott Baker
Citations:
Times 23-Nov-1994, CO 1323/94, [1995] Crim L R 633
Statutes:
Data Protection Act 1984 5(2) 5(5)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Lawrence (Stephen) HL 1981
The defendant had ridden a motor-cycle and hit a pedestrian. The court asked whether he had been reckless.
Held: The House understood recklessness as ‘a state of mind stopping short of deliberate intention, and going beyond mere inadvertence’ . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police v Caldwell HL 19-Mar-1981
The defendant got drunk and set fire to the hotel where he worked. Guests were present. He was indicted upon two counts of arson. He pleaded guilty to the 1(1) count but contested the 1(2) charge, saying he was so drunk that the thought there might . .
Cited by:
Cited – Information Commissioner v Islington London Borough Council Admn 24-May-2002
The commissioner appealed a dismissal of her case against a council, complaining that the council knowingly or recklessly used personal data for the collection of council tax, for which registration had expired.
Held: It was not necessary to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Information, Crime
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.79818