Case Law: R (P) v Home Secretary, The right to put your past behind you and Article 8 – David Hart QC

17 05 2017

In the case of R (o.t.a P & others) v. Secretary of State for Home Department & others ([2017] EWCA Civ 321)  the Court of Appeal upheld challenges to the system of the police retaining information about past misconduct. It held that the system, even after a re-boot in 2013 in response to an earlier successful challenge, remains non-compliant with Article 8Read the rest of this entry »





The Front Page in the Digital Age: Institute of Advanced Legal Studies publishes report on protecting journalists’ sources – Jo Moore

7 03 2017

A study raising concerns about journalists’ ability to protect sources and whistleblowers was launched in the House of Lords last Wednesday. The Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS), in collaboration with the Guardian, has published the results of a research initiative into protecting journalists’ sources and whistleblowers in the current technological and legal environment. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law, CJEU, Tele Sverige/Watson: Who sees you when you’re sleeping? Who knows when you’re awake? – Angela Patrick

21 12 2016

hacking-1685092_960_720In an early holiday delivery, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) today handed down its judgment in the joined cases of Tele Sverige/Watson & Ors (C-203/15/C-698/15), this morning. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Re (W), Can non-parties appeal critical findings made in a judgment which infringe their human rights? – Jo Moore

9 12 2016

silhouetteIn Re: W (A child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1140 the Court of Appeal considered a case in which a Family Court judgment was severely critical of two witnesses and the applicant local authority. In an oral “bullet point” judgment at the end of the hearing, the Judge found that the witnesses, a social worker (‘SW’) and a police officer (‘PO’), had improperly conspired to prove certain allegations regardless of the truth, or professional guidelines. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council, Naming your Abusers – Jonathan Metzer

25 11 2016

no_imageIn the case of Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2016] EWHC 2864 (QB) Males J held that the right of a claimant to name the people who abused her prevailed over the rights of the perpetrators and others to private and family life. Read the rest of this entry »





Quantifying Damages for Breach of Privacy – Gideon Barth

2 11 2016

Home OfficeThe case of TLT v Secretary for Home Department ([2016] EWHC 2217 (QB)) concerned the quantification of damages for data breaches. In October 2013, the Home Office published statistics on its family returns process, the means by which children with no right to remain in the UK are sent back to their country of origin. Read the rest of this entry »





Case Law: Dr DB v General Medial Council, Privacy of a doctor under GMC investigation clashes with that of his patient – David Hart QC

3 10 2016

privacy-policy-fullThe case of Dr DB v. General Medical Council [2016] EWHC 2331 (QB), was an interesting three-way privacy fight between a GP, a patient who had complained about his treatment by the GP, and the GMC who had investigated that complaint. Read the rest of this entry »