header-logo header-logo

14 January 2016
Issue: 7682 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Data thieves under fire

Information commissioner calls for harsher sentences

People who steal personal data should face harsher sentences or even prison, the information commissioner has said, after a woman who illegally sold 28,000 customer records for £5,000 was fined just £1,000.

Car rental company employee Sindy Nagra, 42, received the fine last week for handing over customer information to accident claims companies. The data which she collected at Enterprise Rent-A-Car, in Hayes, included details of insurance policyholders and their claims. The company contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) after noticing that Nagra was looking at a far larger number of records than she was expected to process, and Nagra pleaded guilty to a breach of the Data Protection Act. The man she sold the data to was also fined £1,000.

Courts can issue unlimited fines for the offence, but not custodial sentences.

Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, says: “Nuisance call cowboys and claims market crooks will pay people to steal personal data.

“We’d like to see the courts given more options: suspended sentences, community service, and even prison in the most serious cases.”

Tom Morrison, partner at Rollits, says: “The current Information Commissioner Christopher Graham is fast approaching the end of his time in post and he clearly feels that there is some unfinished business to deal with here.

“The power to impose custodial sentences is something which he has been advocating for many years. It would not be a difficult legal step to activate the power and the political will seems to be there in an environment when privacy and security have never had a higher profile.”

Issue: 7682 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll