After something of a delay following the elevation of the previous incumbent to the High Court (now Mr Justice Peter Lane), the Senior President of Tribunals has now announced the next Chamber President of the General Regulatory Chamber. It is Judge Alison McKenna, who has been the Principal Judge of the GRC for a couple of years now. Judge McKenna will be familiar to users of the Tribunal, and she has decided many FOIA appeals. Panopticon welcomes her to the Presidency and the expanded information rights domain she will doubtless receive when the Data Protection Bill is finally enacted.

Continue reading →

If there is one thing everyone using FOIA is used to, it is the idea that the personal data (names, contact details) of ‘junior civil servants’ will be redacted out of the disclosed information, applying the section 40(2) personal data exemption. Unless there is a good reason not to. But what if everyone is wrong? Is redacting junior civil servants just a personal data shibboleth? Continue reading →

In amongst the headline-grabbing right to be forgotten judgments, leading to very long posts, Panopticon gets regular queries from people working in public authorities concerned about how the GDPR is going to affect their ability to use the section 40 personal data exemption in FOIA. A short post on the answer is warranted. Continue reading →

It has taken some time for the principles recognised – somewhat ambiguously – in Google Spain to be tested in the English courts. Although the so-called right to be forgotten has rarely left the public memory (at least of that wretched and spindly section of the public which is interested in data protection), taking on Google takes guts, money and an ability to overlook the risk of the Streisand effect. NT1 & NT2 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB) is the battle royale you have been waiting for. But if you want brevity, look elsewhere. Continue reading →

The judgment of Warby J in NT1 & NT2 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 799 (QB) – the first (and second) right to be forgotten trials in England and Wales – has now been handed down. You can read it here and there is a summary here. Who wins? It’s a 1-1 draw, with Google winning on the facts of NT1 and losing on the facts of NT2. Continue reading →

It all seems a long time ago that the CJEU handed down its judgment in Google Spain and inculcated the right to be forgotten doesn’t it? Commentators – including here and here – opined with varying degrees of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the implications of it, and how endless litigation was anticipated. But there hasn’t been all that much. The lion has been sleeping so far.  Continue reading →