swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
Information - From: 1994 To: 1994
This page lists 3 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.
ÂRegina -v- Mid Glamorgan Family Health Services Authority, ex parte Martin Gazette, 19 October 1994; Independent, 07 September 1994; Times, 16 August 1994; [1995] 1 All ER 357
7 Sep 1994
CA
Health Professions, Health, Information
A doctor may deny a patient access to his health records if it is in the patient's best interests to do so. There is no common law right for a patient to see his own medical records, and the Act is not retrospective.
Access to Health Records Act 1990
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
Data Protection Registrar -v- Amnesty International (British Section) Times, 23 November 1994; CO 1323/94; [1995] Crim L R 633
8 Nov 1994
Admn
Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Scott Baker
Information, Crime
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.”
Data Protection Act 1984 5(2) 5(5)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
Regina -v- Broadcasting Complaints Commission Ex Parte Granada Television Ltd Gazette, 15 February 1995; Ind Summary, 20 February 1995; Times, 16 December 1994; [1995] EMLR 16
16 Dec 1994
CA
Intellectual Property, Media, Judicial Review, Information
The Broadasting Complaints Commission had been established to determine questions of privacy, and the courts should be slow to intervene. The right of privacy of an individual had not been lost by past publicity. That privacy had been infringed by the broadcast complained of, and the commissions decision was not unreasonable. The privacy of bereaved families was infringed by photographs even if the family was otherwise notorious.
Broadcasting Act 1990 143
1 Cites
1 Citers
Â
