Comments on: Data Protection Act makes a mockery of open justice

By: Peter Mc

Peter Mc — Sat, 17 May 2008 12:42:14 +0000

I had a tribunal hearing a while back and I was told by the ICO that I could not obtain the Chairman’s
notes under DPA (the FOIA defers to the DPA for your own personal data) becuase these notes were
made “for their own use only” (!?). Needless to say, the ICO also claimed that their opinion was
not a legal determination.

Interestingly, in reference to Open Court hearings, I had hoped to publicise some aspects of my case
and was advised that an injunction would be sought against me. It is also worth noting that I recall
section 14 of the Defamation Act only grants absolute privilege to the reporting of “contemporaneous”
court proceedings.

By: Roy Benford

Roy Benford — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:26:46 +0000

I am old enough to remember when the local paper printed details of all cases that came before the magistrates courts listing the names of guilty parties. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case and the Data Protection Act is often claimed as a reason for withholding the information. It is unfortunate that the example quoted is related to ASBOs. A better example is prosecutions by Lancashire County Council under Section 169A of the Licensing Act 1964, see Lancashire county Council v Information Commissioner decision dated 27th March 2007.

By: Nick Evans

Nick Evans — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:43:07 +0000

A small matter, but ASBOs are *not* part of the criminal justice system; they’re civil matters. An ASBO is not a “sentence” to punish criminal conduct handed down after trial; it’s an order preventing a person from engaging in conduct that is *not* criminal, but which might lead to criminal behaviour. There’s therefore a significant difference.

And another small matter: the Tribunal did *not* say that names can be kept secret; it expressly stated that publicity should be the norm *at the time o the decision*. Indeed, Camden does publish details of ASBOs from time-to-time. see an example at: http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/press/2004/september/100-asbos-to-help-cut-anti-social-behaviour.en;jsessionid=4D231BCDB961F2FBE0C47D4545A7A099.node2

What the Tribunal said was that giving out *all* of the names and addresses, regardless of how long after the making of the ASBO and regardless of how the publicity might affect the conduct of the person concerned, how it might affect the remainder of the ASBO, or whether that particular person was in a vulnerable situation where it wouldn’t be appropriate to publish their personal details. Particularly where there was no particular reason to have the names and addresses themselves: Mr Leigh claimed that he was researching the effectiveness of ASBOs. He could have done this just as easily if the recipients were all given an identifying number.

Shockingly, Mr Leigh appears to have taken a very partial view of the decision.

I agree, though, that it is daft for him not to be notified of the decision – or even joined as an interested party.

By: Francis Irving

Francis Irving — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:54:52 +0000

Out of interest, why did David Leigh want the names and or/addresses of the ASBO subjects?

The tribunal document claims that they were not necessary for his research, but you are implying that they were. What was he going to do with them?