“The Australian radio DJs who made the hoax call to the hospital where the Duchess of Cambridge was being treated for acute morning sickness could have committed an offence under UK law, a leading barrister has said.”
The Guardian, 10th December 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Public authorities required to disclose ‘datasets’ in order to comply with a freedom of information (FOI) request should have to make sure the information is ‘machine readable’ and accompanied by explanatory material, the Government has proposed.”
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd December 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“This week, the Court of Appeal heard the cases of R (T) v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police and others and R (JB) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. These are the latest in a series of cases challenging whether the criminal records checks regime is compatible with the Convention. Unlike previous cases, which have concerned the disclosure of “soft information” held on local police computer systems, these cases raise in stark terms the compatibility of s.113B(3)(a) of the Police Act 1997 with Article 8. This requires the disclosure of all convictions, cautions, warnings and reprimands on an Enhanced Criminal Records Certificate (‘ECRC’). In T’s case, his ECRC disclosed a warning he had been given for stealing a bicycle when he was 11. In JB’s case, her ECRC disclosed a caution for shoplifting given eight years before the check.”
Panopticon, 28th November 2012
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“If through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in the tortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrong-doing he may incur no personal liability but he comes under a duty to assist the person who has been wronged by giving him full information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers. Justice requires that he should co-operate in righting the wrong if he unwittingly facilitated its perpetration. This is the principle recognized by the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133.”
Panopticon, 28th November 2012
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
In re Press Association [2012] EWCA Crim 2434; [2012] WLR (D) 343
“The court did not have the power under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 nor under section 1(2) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to make an order anonymising the name of a defendant. It was for those responsible for decisions relating to publication to ensure that the provisions which protected the public identification of a complainant in sexual cases were obeyed and they did so, not because there were enjoined to do so by judicial order, but because it was a statutory requirement.”
WLR Daily, 21st November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“When exercising its discretion as to whether to grant an order for the disclosure of information, which included the disclosure of personal data about identifiable individuals, the court was not confined to weighing the impact of the disclosure on the individuals concerned against the value to the claimant of obtaining the information, but was entitled have regard to other relevant factors including the strong public interest in allowing a claimant to vindicate his legal rights and whether the making of the order would deter similar wrongdoing in the future.”
WLR Daily, 21st November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The decision to deport an individual and the grant of conditional bail pending deportation did not involve a determination of civil rights within the meaning of article 6 of the Convention for the Protections of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and accordingly the fair trial provisions in article 6 had no application to that decision. Where bail conditions interfered with an individual’s article 8 rights to protection of private and family life but did not amount to deprivation of liberty, the individual had to be able to make an effective challenge to the decision but was not without more entitled to the disclosure of information relating to the national security case against him.”
WLR Daily, 19th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The further review was established to consider the specific issue of sanctions for disclosure failure by both the prosecution and the defence; whether the sanctions available, together with judicial case management powers, are adequate to secure compliance with disclosure duties and, if not, whether there are options for strengthening those sanctions.”
Judiciary of England and Wales, 22nd November 2012
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
“Financial services, mobile telecoms and energy companies will be compelled by law to provide consumers with data they hold about their transactions or consumption in an ‘electronic, machine readable’ format, upon request, if they do not do so voluntarily, the Government has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 20th November 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Lawyers could be disciplined for not disclosing ‘all material facts’ in legal bids to halt removal of asylum seekers, a senior judge has said.”
BBC News, 19th November 2012
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The European Court of Human Rights yesterday handed down a Chamber judgment in M.M. v United Kingdom (Application no. 24029/07) declaring that the arrangements for the indefinite retention of data relating to a person’s caution in a criminal matter and for the disclosure of such data in criminal record checks infringe Article 8 of the ECHR. Although the Court recognised that there might be a need for a comprehensive record of data relating to criminal matters, the indiscriminate and open-ended collection of criminal record data was unlikely to comply with Article 8 in the absence of clear and detailed statutory regulations clarifying the safeguards applicable and governing the use and disposal of such data, particularly bearing in mind the amount and sensitivity of the data.”
Panopticon, 14th November 2012
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“People with minor criminal records may not have them disclosed to potential employers in future after the European Court of Human Rights condemned the lack of scope for discretion in Britain’s current vetting system.”
Daily Telegraph, 13th November 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov: [2012] EWCA Civ 1411; [2012] WLR (D) 308
“The court had jurisdiction to make an order barring a defendant, who had absconded following his committal for contempt, from defending the claims against him unless within a stated period he both surrendered to custody and made proper disclosure of all his assets and dealings with them.”
WLR Daily, 6th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The ‘personal data’ provisions under s. 40(2) FOIA and regulation 13 EIR can often be very difficult to apply, particularly in light of the Durant ‘notions of assistance’, namely biographical significance and focus. It is correspondingly difficult to predict how such arguments will fare before the Tribunal. Two recent cases offer good illustrations. Both saw the Tribunal order disclosure of property-related personal data which was deemed to be of ‘low inherent sensitivity.’ ”
Panopticon, 8th November 2012
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“Businesses do not have a general claim of ownership over the content in staff emails, a High Court judge has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 8th November 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“In recent months, the major information law issues have involved the government’s vetoing disclosure of the Prince Charles ‘black spider’ letters, its response to the draft new EU Data Protection Regulation, a number of Article 8 decisions concerning police and criminal records and changes to RIPA. On this last point, note that as of last Thursday, local authorities require a magistrate’s approval for authorising directed surveillance.”
Panopticon, 4th November 2012
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
For a long time family lawyers and the family courts have made the best of the creaking mechanism for financial provision that is the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973) (much amended…). Procedural changes are made but in terms of the interpretation of the MCA 1973 itself, case law is king. The family courts “make do and mend” so that the nearly 40-year-old primary legislation is fit for purpose. But the Court of Appeal last week decided that that the company law case of Salomon v A Salomon and Company, Limited [1897] AC 22 applies as much in the disposition of ancillary relief proceedings as in other proceedings.
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 1st November 2012
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“Stamp duty land tax (SDLT) schemes relating to residential or non-residential property of any value must be disclosed to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) from 1 November under the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes (DOTAS) rules, as new regulations come into force.”
OUT-LAW.com, 2nd November 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Alison Burge, barrister, of Pump Court Chambers analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision in the watershed case of Petrodel v Prest.”
Family Law Week, 31st October 2012
Source: www.familylawweek.com
“Close on the heels of last week’s decision regarding disclosure of information from the Child Sex Offenders Register comes this ruling on the police decision to disclose certain information from a nurse’s enhanced criminal records certificates without affording her an opportunity to make representations before the information was released.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th October 2012
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025