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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

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