header-logo header-logo

15 February 2009
Issue: 7260 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-detail

Trading in personal data could mean jail

Private detectives and journalists who misuse personal data could be jailed in future.

Last week, the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) announced it would be amending s 60 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) to raise the punishment to up to six months imprisonment on summary conviction, and up to two years imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

Currently, it is an offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 on summary conviction or unlimited on conviction on indictment, under s 55 of the Act for anyone “to sell or offer to sell personal data which has been (or is subsequently) obtained/ procured knowingly or recklessly without the consent of the data controller”.

The amendments follow concernsraised in the DCA consultation paper, Increasing Penalties for Deliberate and Wilful Misuse of Personal Data, launched last July, and in an earlier information Commissioner’s Office report that existing penalties were an insufficiently strong deterrent.

Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, says: “A custodial sentence will act as a deterrent for individuals who are tempted to obtain or disclose personal information unlawfully.”

Data protection specialist Peter Carey, editor of the Privacy and Data Protection Journal, says he expects custodial sentences will be reserved for repeat and serious offenders.

“I think the courts will welcome the extra power that they will have and will use it appropriately. I support the use of custodial sentences because some of the things done which give rise to the offence are very serious invasions of people’s privacy.

“Section 55 is very specific and narrowly drawn and should not inhibit normal investigative journalism although some tabloid journalists who take things too far will be at risk as will private detectives who operate in an unlawful way.”

A spokesperson from the human rights group Liberty says: “Data protection rights are very important and this increased penalty, provided it is not used unnecessarily, doesn’t alarm us unduly.”
 

Issue: 7260 / Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll