Freedom of Information and Data - Protection of Freedoms Bill No.8

Background

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FOIA) deals with access to information held by "public authorities" (as defined in the Act - s.3).  Section 1(1) creates a duty to confirm or deny - "Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled - (a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and (b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him."   However, the Act provides for exemptions to this duty: e.g. information relating to defence, international relations, communications with Her Majesty and Honours etc.  The 2000 Act also provides for an Information Commissioner and an Information Tribunal (s. 18).  Various Codes of Practice are issued under Part III of the Act.

The Data Protection Act 1998 replaced the earlier 1984 Act.   The Act provides for

Is this right? Stories which make people wonder ...

Five items which make one wonder but, at this stage, specific views are not offered:-:

1. The Police may be going to protest over cuts ... The Guardian 8th March ... Should they?   See the earlier post - Peaceful Protest

2.  Does this sex discrimination claim merit £70,000 in compensation?  The Guardian 8th March. [NB: No liability was admitted]. See also Criminal Injuries Compensation

3.  Did this man merit a greater fine?  Man fined £50 for burning poppies ....  The Court's judgment is here.  See the Magistrates' Courts Sentencing Guidelines at page 88 - which the District Judge who passed sentence "must" work to.  See further the earlier post - "Rights entail responsibiltiies"

4.  Why is the government doing this?  New Statesman.  Here is a link to the draft convention.

5.  Should these places be run by private enterprise?  The Guardian 6th March.  It may be the way of the future - "Breaking the Cycle ...."

In relation to many of these stories it is all too easy to "shoot from the hip."  That is not "legal method".  As always, the considered views of readers are welcome.

An entirely different matter - Mr Chris Jefferies has been released from Police bail - The Independent
Please see the earlier post Police Powers - Bail

Copyrighting Stormtroopers; Squatters; Adoption

Update 27th July 2011:  Supreme Court judgment in Lucasfilm case.   See also The Guardian 27th July.


Some interesting cases in the Supreme Court

Copyright is an important aspect of "intellectual property."  Is a Star Wars stormtrooper's helmet a "sculpture" and therefore capable of being protected by Copyright?  That is one of the questions before the Supreme Court in Lucasfilm v Ainsworth.  The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) did not think it was a "sculpture" (judgment).  Another question in the case is whether, even if it were to be a sculpture, the matter is enforceable in this country given that this is an American copyright.  A good preview of this case may be read on the UK Supreme Court blog.   A further and very different case is that of Al Rawi in which judgment is expected in the near future.  Again, the UKSC Blog has a good write up about this important and interesting matter.  The key issue

It's been an interesting week ... ebb and flow ...

 Assange is to appeal

We have had a fascinating few days.  I am indebted to CharonQC for drawing attention to a comment by Geoffrey Robertson QC (speaking for the defence) at Julian Assange's extradition hearing in February - "Sexual encounters have their ups and downs, their ebbs and flows.”    Mr Assange has lodged an appeal with the High Court - (see Telegraph) - against the decision of the judge who heard the case at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court - (see Law and Lawyers 24th February).  At the heart of the case is the thorny legal and highly political matter of European Arrest Warrants and this is discussed in some detail on CharonQC's interesting "Without Prejudice" podcast.

New Queen's Counsel

120 lawyers have been granted the coveted rank of Queen's Counsel (QC).   Joshua Rozenberg wrote about this in The Guardian 2nd March - "Queen's Counsel: the merits of giving the best advocates a badge of excellence."  The Ministry of Justice also mentioned it but were at some pains to point out that they are no longer involved in the selection process which is now done by selection panels independent of the government and the professions.  Six of the appointees are "Honoris Causa" which is awarded to those who have made major contributions to the law of England and Wales outside of the courts.  BabyBarista blog takes a somewhat light-hearted view of the appointments system.

Contempt of court and media websites

The Daily Mail and The Sun have been held to be guilty of contempt of court having published on their websites a photograph of a defendant in an ongoing criminal trial - see Attorney-General v Associated Newspapers [2011] EWHC 418 (Admin). The case is discussed on the UK Human Rights blog - "Warning for bloggers and tweeters as newspapers found guilty of contempt of court."

Fostering and religion-based views

Mr and Mrs Johns had applied to Derby City Council to be short-term foster carers.  They hold strong views,based on their religious belief, that sexual relations should be confined to male/female marriage.  The Council considered

Vetting and Barring and Criminal Records: The Protection of Freedoms Bill No.7

Vetting and Barring (VBS)

Background - In August 2002, two girls - Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman - went missing in the small town of Soham.  Two weeks later their bodies were discovered.  Ian Huntley (School Caretaker) and Maxine Carr (Teaching Assistant) were arrested.  In December 2003 Huntley was convicted of the murder of the two girls and Carr was convicted of perverting the course of justice.  Huntley received two life sentences and Carr was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment.  She is now released and lives under a new identity.  See Soham Murders.   The Home Secretary of the day (David Blunkett) set up an inquiry to be chaired by Sir Michael (now Lord) Bichard.  The inquiry reported in June 2004 and the report was very critical of the Police.  It transpired that Huntley had been investigated for a considerable number of alleged sexual offences involving young girls but he had not been charged with any.  Humberside Police thought it to be unlawful (under Data Protection legislation) to hold data regarding allegations which did not lead to convictions even though other forces were doing so.  Bichard recommended the establishment of a registration scheme for those wishing to work with children or vulnerable adults.  The outcome was the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (SVGA) which set up what is referred to as the "Vetting and Barring Scheme" (VBS) which is now administered via the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA).

Reviews of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act - It is interesting to note

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

Peter Jackson J - sitting in the Court of Protection - has held that, in the context of Steven Neary's case, certain media outlets may be represented at hearings - see London Borough of Hillingdon v Steven Neary and Mark Neary [2011] EWHC 413 (COP).    The case is a very disturbing application of Deprivation of Liberty powers in relation to a vulnerable person.  This ruling applies just to the Neary case and is not therefore to be regarded as a precedent since the facts of individual cases will differ.   Nevertheless, it is a good result for casting light upon the workings of this court.  The Telegraph 1st March - "Secretive Court of Protection in legal reporting first over man's battle with Council."

Previous posts: 9th December 2010 and 22nd December 2010.
Other Blogs:  CharonQC 2nd March 2011  and Anna Raccoon blog and Anna Raccoon 6th December.

"Counter-terrorism powers" - The Protection of Freedoms Bill - No.6

The United Kingdom has very extensive "anti-terrorism" legislation.  The modern history of this perhaps begins with the enactment - over just two days in November 1974 - of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974.  This was presented as the government's response to the Birmingham Pub Bombings - (Mulberry Bush and Tavern in the Town) - on 21st November 1974 though it is now clear that the legislation had been drafted previously (here). There were public marches demanding that Parliament restore the death penalty.   In the event, six men ("The Birmingham Six") stood trial at Lancaster Castle before Bridge J (later Lord Bridge of Harwich) and a jury.  They were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.  In 1991, at their third appeal, the convictions were quashed.  In the light of this and certain other miscarriage of justice cases, a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice was set up which reported in July 1993.  Between 1974 and the end of the 20th century the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provision) Acts held sway but they were replaced by the Terrorism Act 2000.  Since then there have been the following major enactments concerning terrorism: Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and  Terrorism Act 2006 

Whilst obviously aimed primarily at terrorism, a considerable number of civil liberties concerns arose due to perhaps over-zealous application of some of the provisions especially Terrorism Act 2000 sections 43-47..  There are two "stop and search" powers - section 43 and 44.  Section 43 requires reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is a terrorist.  Section 44 enables the police to stop and search any person or any vehicle within an authorised area so as to search for articles of a kind which could be used for terrorism. The Police could seize