Lord Justice Leveson has today published his eagerly awaited report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press.  The key proposal which will shape the future of press regulation is the recommendation to create an independent self-regulatory body, governed by an independent board. Of particular interest to information lawyers is the discussion of the extent to which the current legal, policy and regulatory framework has failed in relation to data protection. In this respect, the Report considers the lessons that can be learned from the practices of the press in relation to data handling and processing, makes bold recommendations in relation to legislative reform and further considers a bolstering of the Information Commissioner’s role and function.  The principal parts of the report dealing with the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”) and ICO are Volume III, Part H and Volume IV, Appendix 4, Part 4.

Data protection: a key element of privacy rights

A key part of the Leveson Inquiry has been to consider the extent to which the press has unjustifiably interfered with the privacy of individuals in a manner which cannot be justified in the public interest. In this context, invasion of privacy does not mean simply through the publication of articles which intrude into the details of individuals’ private lives, but rights of individuals to keep personal information private, and rights restricting how personal information is processed by journalists. The Inquiry’s Terms of Reference expressly required Lord Justice Leveson to consider the extent to which the current policy and regulatory framework has failed in relation to data protection. The Inquiry provided a fresh and independent perspective for considering the DPA and the role of the ICO.

Historic difficulties in investigating and regulating data protection breaches by the press

Operation Motorman was an investigation by the ICO into the conduct of a private investigator, Steve Whittamore, which revealed that a significant amount of personal data was being sought by journalists working for most of the major newspaper groups. The data was being obtained by Mr Whittamore in breach of s.55 DPA (for example, through payments to public officials for details from a DVLA database, or through the blagging of friends and family telephone numbers from BT) and subsequently supplied to journalists. Mr Whittamore was prosecuted, but no journalist was interviewed by the ICO or subjected to enforcement action or prosecution. The Report highlights that the investigation produced a ‘treasure trove’ of evidence of serious and systemic illegality and poor practice in the acquisition and use of personal information which could have spread across the press as a whole. It also questions why the ICO failed to interview journalists or prosecute journalists for breach of the DPA, and notes that two reports laid before Parliament by the ICO had set out the evidence of a flourishing and unlawful trade in confidential personal information.

The Report highlights that one of the difficulties encountered by the ICO in pursuing breaches of data protection legislation against the press arose from deficiencies in the legal framework, which “puts unnecessary and inappropriate barriers in the way of regulatory law enforcement and the protection of victims’ rights”. Perhaps for this reason, amendments to the legal framework form a key part of the recommendations on data protection reform.

Recommendations to amend data protection legislation

Section 32 of the DPA restricts the circumstances in which the ICO can exercise most of its powers in relation to the press. Section 32 operates by disapplying a number of investigative and enforcement powers in circumstances where the data processing falls within section 32, namely where (i) the processing is undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic material; (ii) the data controller reasonably believes that, having regard in particular to the special importance of the public interest in freedom of expression, publication would be in the public interest; and (iii) the data controller reasonably believes that, in all the circumstances, compliance with that provision is incompatible with the special purposes.

The Report recommends that section 32 should be amended so as to make it available only where: (a) the processing of data is necessary for publication, rather than simply being in fact undertaken with a view to publication; (b) the data controller reasonably believes that the relevant publication would be or is in the public interest, with no special weighting of the balance between the public interest in freedom of expression and in privacy; and (c) objectively, that the likely interference with privacy resulting from the processing of the data is outweighed by the public interest in publication. These amendments would render it more difficult for those organisations processing data for the purposes of publication to bring themselves within the scope of s.32. The proposed amendments seek to re-set the balance between the public interest in freedom of expression and the public interest in personal information privacy.

Further, the report recommends that the extent to which s.32 disapplies provisions of the DPA should be reduced and  that the processing of data by the press should be subject to the following obligations (which previously attracted exemption):

•  the requirement of the first data protection principle to process personal data fairly (except in relation to the provision of information to the data subject under paragraph 2(1)(a) of Part II Schedule 1 to the DPA) and in accordance with statute law;
•  the second data protection principle (personal data to be obtained only for specific purposes and not processed incompatibly with those purposes);
• the fourth data protection principle (personal data to be accurate and kept up to date);
•  the sixth data protection principle (personal data to be processed in accordance with the rights of individuals under the Act);
•  the eighth data protection principle (restrictions on exporting personal data); and
• the right of subject access (subject to further investigation and clarification of protection of journalists’ sources).

Recommendations for procedural amendments

The Report recommends:

• The repeal of certain procedural provisions of the DPA with special application to journalism (namely section 32(4) and (5) and sections 44 to 46). The purpose of this is to give the ICO, and the Courts, greater powers to consider breaches of data protection without procedural hurdles in place, for example repealing section 32(4) would allow Courts to consdier preventing the Courts considering the complaint whilst the ICO determines whether the data controller has been processing the date for the purposes of journalism;
• In conjunction with the repeal of those procedural provisions, consideration should be given to the desirability of including in the DPA a provision to the effect that, in considering the exercise of any powers in relation to the media or other publishers, the ICO should have special regard to the obligation in law to balance the public interest in freedom of expression alongside the public interest in upholding the data protection regime;
• Specific provision should be made to the effect that, in considering the exercise of any of its powers in relation to the media or other publishers, the ICO must have regard to the application to a data controller of any relevant system of regulation or standards enforcement which is contained in or recognised by statute; and
• To further strengthen individuals’ rights, the right to compensation for distress conferred by section 13 of the DPA is not restricted to cases of pecuniary loss, but should include compensation for pure distress.

ICO’s powers of prosecution

In his evidence to the Inquiry, the former Information Commissioner Richard Thomas described the ICO as “primarily not a prosecuting authority. That was almost on the side”. The main formal power in the event of non-compliance was the ‘enforcement notice’, which could specify and require compliance action subject to the back-up sanctions of court enforcement, although this was not frequently used. Prosecution powers were limited to section 55 of the DPA and did not extend, for example, to other offences such as phone hacking (although this might also technically involve a section 55 DPA breach).

The Report recommends that:

• The necessary steps should be taken to bring into force the amendments made to section 55 of the DPA by section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (increase of sentence maxima) to the extent of the maximum specified period; and by section 78 of the 2008 Act (enhanced defence for public interest journalism);
• The prosecution powers of the Information Commissioner should be extended to include any offence which also constitutes a breach of the data protection principles.
• A new duty should be introduced (whether formal or informal) for the ICO to consult with the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to the exercise of its powers to undertake criminal proceedings;
• The ICO should immediately adopt the Guidelines for Prosecutors on assessing the public interest in cases affecting the media, issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions in September 2012; and
• The ICO should take immediate steps to engage with the Metropolitan Police on the preparation of a long-term strategy in relation to alleged media crime with a view to ensuring that it is well placed to fulfil any necessary role in this respect in the future, and in particular in the aftermath of Operations Weeting, Tuleta and Elveden.

Recommendation to issue guidance

The Report includes a number of recommendations directed at the ICO in relation to its provision of guidance and advice. In particular, it recommends that the ICO should issue good practice guidelines and advice on appropriate principles and standards to be observed by the press in the processing of personal data. Further, it should issue guidance to the public on their individual rights in relation to the press and their personal data and also advice for data subjects who are concerned that their data may have been processed by the press unlawfully or otherwise than in accordance with good practice. In full:

• The ICO should take immediate steps to prepare, adopt and publish a policy on the exercise of its formal regulatory functions in order to ensure that the press complies with the legal requirements of the data protection regime.
• In discharge of its functions and duties to promote good practice in areas of public concern, the ICO should take immediate steps, in consultation with the industry, to prepare and issue comprehensive good practice guidelines and advice on appropriate principles and standards to be observed by the press in the processing of personal data. This should be prepared and implemented within six months from the date of this Report.
• The ICO should take steps to prepare and issue guidance to the public on their individual rights in relation to the obtaining and use by the press of their personal data, and how to exercise those rights.
• In particular, the ICO should take immediate steps to publish advice aimed at individuals (data subjects) concerned that their data have or may have been processed by the press unlawfully or otherwise than in accordance with good practice.
• The ICO, in the Annual Report to Parliament which it is required to make by virtue of section 52(1) of the DPA, should include regular updates on the effectiveness of the foregoing measures, and on the culture, practices and ethics of the press in relation to the processing of personal data.

Strengthening the ICO

The Report recommends that the opportunity should be taken to consider amending the DPA formally to reconstitute the ICO as an Information Commission, led by a Board of Commissioners with suitable expertise drawn from the worlds of regulation, public administration, law and business, and active consideration should be given in that context to the desirability of including on the Board a Commissioner from the media sector.

The Report recommended to the ICO that:

• It should take the opportunity to review the availability to it of specialist legal and practical knowledge of the application of the data protection regime to the press, and to any extent necessary address it; and
• It should take the opportunity to review its organisation and decision-making processes to ensure that large-scale issues, with both strategic and operational dimensions (including the relationship between the culture, practices and ethics of the press in relation to personal information on the one hand, and the application of the data protection regime to the press on the other) can be satisfactorily considered and addressed in the round.

Rachel Kamm

(11KBW’s Heather Emmerson was instructed by the Treasury Solicitor as part of the team of Counsel to the Leveson Inquiry.)

This week, the Court of Appeal heard the cases of R (T) v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police and others and R (JB) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department.  These are the latest in a series of cases challenging whether the criminal records checks regime is compatible with the Convention.  Unlike previous cases, which have concerned the disclosure of “soft information” held on local police computer systems, these cases raise in stark terms the compatibility of s.113B(3)(a) of the Police Act 1997 with Article 8.  This requires the disclosure of all convictions, cautions, warnings and reprimands on an Enhanced Criminal Records Certificate (“ECRC”).  In T’s case, his ECRC disclosed a warning he had been given for stealing a bicycle when he was 11.  In JB’s case, her ECRC disclosed a caution for shoplifting given eight years before the check.

Was there an interference?

The first issue to be considered by the Court is whether there is any interference with Article 8.  Following R (L) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2010] 1 AC 410 M.M. v United Kingdom (Application no. 24029/07), it is clear that a person’s Article 8 rights will be engaged by disclosure of their past convictions in two situations:  if the disclosure has a direct effect on their employment opportunities; or if their convictions are sufficiently long ago that they have become part of their private life.

Neither T nor JB lost employment opportunities as a direct result of the ECRC.  T risked losing a place on his degree course, but was eventually permitted to finish.  JB was told that one agency would not put her forward for work as a carer.  However, she may be able to work with other agencies.

The question is whether the disclosure of this information on an ECRC will necessarily interfere with the right to respect for private life, even if it does not affect the subject’s employment opportunities.  In favour of this proposition, it was argued that because a caution or warning is given in private, as it recedes into the past, it becomes part of the subject’s private life.  Similarly, as a conviction recedes into the past, it could also become part of the subject’s private life.  Against it, it was argued that the conviction and warning were too recent to have become part of the Claimants’ private lives.

Was any interference justified?

The question of whether any interference was justified turns on both principled arguments and the effect of a number of key decisions in this area.

As to the principles, the Claimants, Liberty and the EHRC argued that it was disproportionate to require blanket and indiscriminate disclosure of all convictions, cautions, warnings and reprimands, no matter how old and how relevant to the purpose for which the ECRC was obtained.  Counsel for the Secretary of State argued that designing the criminal record checks regime involves striking a balance between important and conflicting interests. This is a matter for Parliament.  Parliament has resolved to leave it up to employers to decide whether an offence is minor or irrelevant.  This solution allows for an automated, rule-based process for undertaking the ECRC.  Therefore, he argued, this is a reasonable solution.

In addition to this analysis of the principles, arguments on justification focused on the effect of three key authorities:

1. R (L) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2010] 1 AC 410.  The Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether the majority of the Supreme Court in L had decided that the Act was compatible with Article 8 insofar as it required disclosure of all convictions and cautions.  There was also debate as to whether L is incompatible with the later Supreme Court decision that the notification obligations on sex offenders were incompatible with Article 8 (R (F) v Justice Secretary [2011] 1 AC 331).
2. Chief Constable of Humberside Police and others v Information Commissioner [2010] 1 WLR 1136:  A week before the decision in L, the Court of Appeal had held that the retention of information regarding criminal convictions was justified.  The question for the Court of Appeal now is whether this decision is distinguishable on the grounds that it concerned retention, rather than disclosure, of information.
3. M.M. v United Kingdom (Application no. 24029/07):  Only two weeks ago, the Strasbourg Court held that the arrangements in Northern Ireland for the indefinite retention of data relating to a person’s criminal caution infringe Article 8 of the ECHR (read Charles Bourne’s blog post on this case here).  The disclosure of this data in criminal record checks was also found to infringe Article 8, as the statutory scheme did not provide sufficient safeguards to protect the data from disclosure in breach of Article 8.  Therefore, the interference with the Applicant’s Article 8 rights was ‘not in accordance with the law’.  Before the Court of Appeal, it was argued by the Government that MM: was wrongly decided; was distinguishable on its facts; does not embody any clear constant jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court and cannot in any event be followed because of the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in L.

Is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (SI 1975/1023) ultra vires?

This additional issue was only raised in T.  Applicants for jobs covered by the Order have to answer truthfully any questions from prospective employers about their spent convictions and cautions.  Applicants for jobs falling outside the scope of the Order are permitted to answer untruthfully.  The question is whether the Order is ultra vires because it is incompatible with Article 8 to (in effect) require prospective employees for certain positions to disclose all of their convictions and cautions.  There was argument as to whether striking down the Order would improperly impose a positive obligation on the State to permit employees to give untruthful answers.  The Court is also asked to consider whether the compatibility of the Order is really a distinct issue from the compatibility of s.113B(3)(a) of the Police Act.

Judgment is awaited.

Jason Coppel represented the Home Secretary in both cases and the Justice Secretary in T.  Tim Pitt-Payne QC represented Liberty, intervening in T.

 

Hannah Slarks

If through no fault of his own a person gets  mixed up in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrong-doing he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers.  Justice requires that he should co-operate in righting the wrong if he unwittingly facilitated its perpetration.  This is the principle recognized by the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133.

This principle has been considered by the Supreme Court in Rugby Football Union v Consolidated Information Services Ltd (formerly Viagogo Ltd) [2012] UKSC 55.  This case arose in the following way. 

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) is of course the governing body for Rugby Union in England. It owns Twickenham Stadium.  It is responsible for issuing tickets for matches played at the Stadium. It is the RFU’s policy to allocate tickets so as to develop the sport and enhance its popularity. Most tickets are distributed via affiliated rugby clubs and other bodies. The distribution thereafter is subject to different rules depending on the nature of the body in question. Member clubs are permitted to sell some or all of their ticket allocation to official licensed operators for use in corporate hospitality packages. The RFU’s terms and conditions stipulate that any resale of a ticket or any advertisement of a ticket for sale at above face value will constitute a breach of contract rendering the ticket null and void. This condition is printed on the tickets and applicants are warned of it on ticket application forms. A further term stipulates that the tickets are property of the RFU at all times.

Viagogo (now in liquidation) operated a website which provided the opportunity for visitors to the site to buy tickets online for a number of sporting and other events. Sellers would register their tickets with Viagogo and a price would be suggested based on current market data. Viagogo received a percentage of the sale. The RFU monitors ticket re-sale websites in an attempt to discover whether and by whom tickets were being sold above face value. This effort was frustrated, however, in many instances by the anonymity offered by websites including Viagogo.

In the run up to the international rugby matches in autumn 2010 and the Six Nations Tournament, the RFU discovered that Viagogo had been used to advertise thousands of tickets for the matches at Twickenham. Tickets with a face value of £20 to £55 were being advertised for sale at up to £1300. After a request for information about the identity of those selling the tickets was refused, the RFU issued proceedings against Viagogo seeking information which it required in order to take action to protect its policy in relation to tickets.

The High Court granted the RFU a Norwich Pharmacal order requiring Viagogo to disclose the identities of those involved in the sales. The order was made on the grounds that the RFU had a good arguable case that those selling and purchasing the tickets had been guilty of breach of contract and that it was appropriate to grant the order for them to obtain redress.

Before the Court of Appeal, Viagogo introduced a new ground of appeal to the effect that granting the order represented a disproportionate interference with the rights of the potential wrongdoers under Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 8 guarantees the protection of personal data. The Court of Appeal [2011] EWCA Civ 1585 upheld the decision of the High Court and decided that the RFU had no readily alternative means of pursuing the wrongdoers. On the new ground the Court of Appeal held that interference with the personal data rights of the individuals was proportionate in light of the RFU’s legitimate objective in obtaining redress for arguable wrongs.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the grant of the order involved a breach of Article 8 of the Charter.  The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal.  

The Supreme Court observed that cases since Norwich Pharmacal itself have emphasized the need for flexibility and discretion in considering whether the remedy should be granted.  It is not necessary that an applicant intends to bring legal proceedings in respect of the arguable wrong.  Any form of redress (for example disciplinary action or the dismissal of an employee) will suffice to ground an application for the order.  The need to order disclosure will be found to exist only if it is a necessary and proportionate response in all the circumstances.  The test of necessity does not require the remedy to be one of last resort.  The essential purpose of the remedy is to do justice.  This involves the exercise of discretion by a careful and fair weighing of all relevant factors.

Various factors have been identified in the authorities as relevant.  These include: (i) the strength of the possible cause of action contemplated by the applicant for the order;  (ii) the strong public interest in allowing an applicant to vindicate his legal rights;  (iii) whether the making of the order will deter similar wrongdoing in the future;  (iv) whether the information could be obtained from another source;  (v) whether the respondent to the application knew or ought to have known that he was facilitating arguable wrongdoing; (vi) whether the order might reveal the names of innocent persons as well as wrongdoers, and if so whether such innocent persons will suffer any harm as a result;  (vii) the degree of confidentiality of the information sought; (viii) the privacy rights under Article 8 of the ECHR of the individuals whose identity is to be disclosed; (ix) the rights and freedoms under the EU data protection regime of the individuals whose identity is to be disclosed; and (x) the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of journalistic sources, as recognized in s10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and Article 10 of the ECHR.

As Lord Kerr stated (para 18), many of these factors are self-evidently relevant to the question of whether the issue of a Norwich Pharmacal order is proportionate in the context of Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.  Article 8 of the Charter was applicable as the order of the High Court involved disclosure of private data and thus was in the material scope of European Law.

The Supreme Court held that the appropriate test of proportionality under Article 8 of the Charter involved weighing the benefit of the information being sought by the RFU against the impact that disclosure was likely to have on the individual concerned. The appellant was wrong to suggest, however, that the assessment had to be carried out solely by reference to the particular benefit that obtaining information in relation to an individual might bring.  It was artificial and unrealistic to suggest that the RFU’s aim of discouraging others in the future from flouting its rules should not be considered.  The facts of each case must be considered individually, but there was nothing in the European cases cited or otherwise which supported the notion that the wider context for which the RFU wished to have the information should be left out of account.

While there should be an intense focus on the rights claimed by the individuals concerned, this was not a case where disclosure would result in oppressive or unfair treatment. The only information sought was the names and addresses of individuals who had bought and sold tickets in clear breach of the RFU’s ticket policy. The particular circumstances affecting a person whose data were sought may in some limited cases displace the interests of the applicant for disclosure even where there was no feasible alternative way of getting the information. This was not such a case, however.

The Information Commissioner has published a new code of practice on “Anonymisation: managing data protection risk“.

Under the Data Protection Act 1998, the definition of personal data does not include information relating to an individual if that individual cannot be identified from that information together with all other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller. It follows that where an organisation holds data relating to individuals which is anonymised, or where it is deciding whether or not to anonymise its data, it will need to consider carefully whether the anonymisation method means that the information falls outside the scope of the DPA or not.  The 100+ page code includes guidance and practical examples to assist organisations in assessing their options in relation to anonymisation. This guidance will not only be useful in relation to DPA obligations, but also where an organisation is considering anonymising data in order to respond to a Freedom of Information request. Note that whilst the code gives advice on good practice, it is not mandatory to comply with its recommendations where they go beyond the obligations under the DPA; it  is issued under section 51 of the DPA, but it is not legally enforceable.

In addition to the new Code of Practice, the ICO has announced that “a consortium led by the University of Manchester, with the University of Southampton, Office for National Statistics and the government’s new Open Data Institute (ODI), will run a new UK Anonymisation Network (UKAN). The Network will receive £15,000 worth of funding from the ICO over the next two years to enable sharing of good practice related to anonymisation, across the public and private sector. The network will include a website, case studies, clinics and seminars“.

Rachel Kamm