“What’s the Deal?” Corporate Sponsorship and FOIA 2000 – Garrard v Information Commissioner and British Museum

Posted on | by samuelwillis

The General Regulatory Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal has made a substitute decision in the case Garrard v Information Commissioner and the British Museum [2024] UKFTT 601 (GRC). The Appellant, Dr Christopher Garrard, was successful in part. The reasons will be of interest to those seeking to use information law to access corporate sponsorship arrangements between public institutions and fossil fuel companies, and to those seeking to resist such efforts.

The appeal concerned Dr Garrard’s request to the British Museum in 2022 for information relating to sponsorship negotiations between the British Museum and BP. Dr Garrard challenged the British Museum’s reliance on the commercial interests exemption under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. He argued that the exemption was not engaged and, even if it was, the public interest was weighted in favour of disclosure. Continue reading →

Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Podcast

Posted on | by Jamie Susskind

Jamie Susskind has joined Jasveer Randhawa from Herbert Smith Freehills on the latest episode of their Public Law Podcast series. The episode delves into the regulation of AI, exploring the balance needed between regulation and innovation, and comparing the previous Conservative approach with what we can expect from Labour. They also discuss the use of AI in the public sector, reflecting on the challenges of transparency and accountability for those subject to AI, be they individuals or businesses.

This podcast can be listened to on SoundCloud, Apple and Spotify.

Subject access requests, threats of violence, exemptions and the like

Posted on | by Robin Hopkins

The High Court (Steyn J) has today handed down judgment in Harrison v Cameron and ACL [2024] EWHC 1377 (KB), a case full of notable legal points and rather colourful facts. On phone calls with one of the defendants, the claimant had repeatedly made threats of violence, without realising that the calls were being recorded. Via subject access requests under Article 15 of the UK GDPR, he sought the identities of individuals to whom the content of the recordings had been disclosed. The defendants refused, relying inter alia on the ‘personal data of others’ exemption (see DB v General Medical Council, etc), in light of the claimant’s conduct. In dismissing the claimant’s claim for the identities of the recipients, Steyn J’s judgment addresses not only that exemption, but a range of important data protection issues including the ‘personal/household’ exemption, the definition of ‘data controller’, the right to request specific identities of recipients and the application of post-Brexit CJEU case law (Austrian Post). I acted for the defendants, instructed by Charles Fussell & Co LLP, so for now I’ll just post this.

Experian v ICO – Upper Tribunal dismisses ICO appeal

Posted on | by Anya Proops KC

By way of a judgment given in February 2023, the First-Tier Tribunal substantially upheld Experian’s appeal against an enforcement notice which the ICO had issued to Experian in connection with the data processing activities it undertook in the context of providing data services to clients in support of their offline marketing activities. The Upper Tribunal has today dismissed the ICO’s appeal against the FTT’s judgment: you can access a copy of the judgment together with the Upper Tribunal’s press summary here. I won’t comment further on the judgment here other than to say that further more detailed commentary on the Upper Tribunal’s judgment will doubtless follow on Panopticon in due course.

I acted for Experian, leading Robin Hopkins, instructed by Linklaters LLP. The ICO was represented by Tim Pitt-Payne KC, leading Christopher Knight

Anya Proops KC