header-logo header-logo

18 September 2008
Issue: 7337 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Home Office may retain liability

Experts believe government may be liable for data management breaches

Despite its suspension of the company allegedly guilty of improperly managing data, the Home Office may find itself accountable for breaching data requirements, say experts.

The Home Office last week announced that its contract with PA Consulting Group was to be terminated in light of its failure to provide adequate security measures when handling the personal data of thousands of convicted criminals.

Tom Morrison, associate at Rollits Solicitors, believes that the Home Office may yet be liable. “Whether the buck stops with the Home Office or the company is a moot point. If PA Consulting is held to be the Home Office’s data processor under the Data Protection Act 1998 and if the Home Office remains the data controller, then primary liability for the breach rests with the Home Office,” he says.

He continues:“If the information commissioner chose to get involved, it is likely that both the Home Office and the company would be brought to task, particularly if it is felt that appropriate organisational and technical measures were not in place to prevent accidental loss, damage or disclosure.”

Morrison says that recent changes to the law mean that once a new monetary penalty notices regime has been implemented, businesses that flout the Act may be subjected to fines directly imposed by the information commissioner, rather than through the courts, although guidance governing how such fi nes will be administered has not yet been put in place.

According to Morrison, it is imperative that appropriate safeguards are put in place to reduce the likelihood of data breaches.

He suggests that the termination of the group’s contract may help convince the private sector that, if it cannot demonstrate that it takes data security seriously, it can expect to find it much harder to win public sector contracts in the future.

 

Issue: 7337 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll