Claim against private investigator, seeking compliance with the 1988 Act, in particular seeking details of personal information held.
Held: ‘The claimants’ SAR is and was valid. There was never any proper basis for questioning its validity. CSD’s failure to disclose any personal data at all represents a breach of the claimants’ rights. The personal data held by CSD that relates to the claimants may include some that is protected by the crime exemption, and some that is protected by litigation privilege, but it has not been proved that all of it is so protected.’
In the context of restricting the subject’s right of access to his personal data: ‘The test of necessity is a strict one, requiring any interference with the subject’s rights to be proportionate to the gravity of the threat to the public interest’
Judges:
Warby J
Citations:
[2016] EWHC 643 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Elgizouli v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2020
Defendants were to face trial in the US, accused of monstrous crimes. The appellant challenged the release of information to the USA by the respondent to support such prosecutions when the death penalty was a possible outcome of a conviction: ‘The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Information
Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.562179