header-logo header-logo

Data Protection Bill spells threat to law & press

10 May 2018
Issue: 7792 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-detail

Bar warns proposed changes could put client-lawyer confidentiality in jeopardy

The Information Commissioner could be granted ‘Big Brother’ powers that would pose a threat to legal professional privilege, barristers have warned.

MPs were due to debate the Data Protection Bill this week. However, the Bar Council urged MPs not to rush the legislation through Parliament without effective scrutiny since it could jeopardise the ancient right of client-lawyer confidentiality.

The Bill would allow the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to access legally privileged material without the consent of the client as well as raise legal costs, according to the Bar Council.   

Andrew Walker QC, Chair of the Bar, said: ‘Key safeguards have been overlooked, for example, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the ICO from both obtaining legally privileged material and then disclosing it to a third party for use in any sort of legal proceedings. 

‘That would run a coach and horses through the confidential nature of clients’ communications with their lawyers. The Bill is also clumsily drafted. One of the apparent “safeguards” protects lawyers from self-incrimination, but does not protect their clients themselves, who are the ones most likely to be affected.

‘In addition, a lack of proper scrutiny means that it will impose onerous and entirely unnecessary new obligations on lawyers, risk the disruption of legal proceedings, and make it more difficult for lawyers to use information provided by their clients to advise and defend them. The extra costs of all this will inevitably have to be paid by those seeking legal advice and protection.’

MPs will also vote on an amendment that would force publishers to pay claimants’ costs, win or lose, in any data protection action brought against them, unless they are a member of a state-backed regulator. Currently, the only state-backed regulator is IMPRESS. Several newspaper groups have branded the amendment an unacceptable attack on press freedom.

Issue: 7792 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll