The Commissioner has this week issued an enforcement notice to the Labour Party in response to its act of making unsolicited automated marketing calls without consent to almost half a million people. The calls were made in June 2009 and were designed to encourage people to vote in the European elections. The ICO held that, notwithstanding their inherently political nature, the actions taken by the Labour Party amounted to unlawful ‘direct marketing’ for the purposes of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003. The enforcement notice requires the Labour Party to desist from making further automated calls without the recipients’ consent. Breach of the notice will amount to a criminal offence and could lead to prosecution. This is not the first time that a political party has received an enforcement notice in response to making automated calls. Similar notices have previously been served on the Conservatives, the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats. See further the Commissioner’s press release on this issue.
TRIBUNAL RULES – NEW CONSOLIDATED SIs
For those of you who were struggling to piece together the various statutory instruments containing the new rules governing the operation of the Information Rights Tribunal, help is now at hand. Consolidated versions of the relevant SIs can now be found on the Tribunal’s website.
NEW FEATURES ON PANOPTICON
We’ve had a few emails to let us know that the RSS feed was broken; we hope that we’ve now fixed the problem. And at the same time we’ve introduced an option to subscribe to the blog by email – you should be able to see this at the left-hand side of the page.
EIR EXCEPTIONS – WHAT DOES IT ALL ADD UP TO?
In Ofcom v Information Commissioner [2010] UKSC 3 the Supreme Court was asked to consider how public authorities should approach the exceptions to disclosure set out in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). Most of these exceptions are subject to a public interest test. The public interest in maintaining an exception has to be measured against the public interest in disclosure. Unless the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the information must be disclosed.
But what happens if there are a number of exceptions in play? Do you look at each exception in turn, assessing the public interest in maintaining that exception as against the public interest in disclosure? Or do you aggregate all of the exceptions, assess the combined public interest in maintaining them, and measure that combined interest against the public interest in disclosure?
In the Ofcom litigation, the Court of Appeal had decided in favour of aggregation. The Supreme Court was inclined (by a 3-2 majority) to uphold that decision. But the Supreme Court also recognised that the answer was unclear, and depended on the construction of Directive 2003/4/EC. So the Court has referred the issue to the European Court of Justice.
There is now a practical difficulty: in cases where the aggregation point might make a difference to the outcome, what should the Tribunal do? Should it follow the Court of Appeal? Should it wait for the ECJ? Or should it reach its own view on how the legislation should be interpreted? And Ofcom is an EIR case: what about aggregation under FOIA?
In practice nobody will want the outcome of their case to turn on a point that may not be resolved for some years. It will be much more attractive for parties to argue that aggregation makes no difference to the outcome of their case.
THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL – ACCESSING NICK GRIFFIN TRIAL RECORDS UNDER FOIA
The Guardian reports today that the CPS has refused a request for disclosure of its records of the 1998 race-hate trial of Nick Griffin. In the year before he was elected leader of the BNP, Mr Griffin was given a suspended prison sentence after being convicted of an offence under the Public Order Act 1986. The prosecution case centred on a magazine edited by Mr Griffin in which he dismissed the Holocaust as a hoax. The Guardian’s article indicates that the paper requested disclosure of the CPS’s records of the trial in circumstances where no transcript had been made of the hearing. It would appear that the request was refused by the CPS under s. 40 FOIA (the personal data exemption) and, in particular, on the basis that a large proportion of the requested information was ‘sensitive personal data’ as it related to the commission of an offence and Mr Griffin’s political opinions (see section 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998). It would appear that the Guardian will now lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner. For an example of how the Information Tribunal applied s. 40 FOIA to a request for disclosure of personal data about individuals who had been made subject to ASBOs see further Camden v IC EA/2007/21
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN THE TRIBUNAL
The Tribunal has issued a Practice Note dated 18th January 2010, dealing with the protection of confidential information under the new rules of procedure.
The Note needs to be read in conjunction with the new rules of procedure (discussed in our earlier post here). The relevant rules are set out in the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (SI 2009/1976) as modified by the Tribunal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2010 (SI 2010/43).
The Practice Note indicates that the Tribunal will maintain its previous practice, that disputed information (i.e. the information sought by a requester but withheld by a public authority) will not usually be disclosed to the requester in the course of appeal proceedings before the Tribunal. This may mean that a party is excluded from part of the Tribunal hearing. The Practice Note refers to rule 35 of the new Rules as providing a basis for exclusion.
The Practice Note also includes guidance about the format of witness statements (see paragraph 22) and the contents of bundles (see paragraph 25).