header-logo header-logo

Home Office may retain liability

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll