“Lord Neuberger, the president of the Supreme Court, indicates there may be a case for a rethink on privacy and communications laws thanks to the “enormous challenges” posed by the internet.’
Daily Telegraph, 26th August 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘JSC BTA Bank v. Ablyazov et al 8 August 2014, Popplewell J. What you say to your lawyers is truly confidential; no-one, not even a regulator or prosecutor can see it. This is protected by the right to privacy under Article 8, and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 (which includes the right to access to lawyers). Well, that is the general rule. And this case reminds us that there is an exception to this – when the relationship between client and lawyer is affected by “iniquity”.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 12th August 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Andy Coulson, David Cameron’s former director of communications, looks set to be moved from high-security Belmarsh prison after finally being classified as posing no risk to society.’
The Guardian, 14th August 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A former Sun journalist has walked free from the Old Bailey after he was cleared of all charges levelled against him after he looked through the contents of an iPhone that did not belong to him.’
The Guardian, 13th August 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘What you say to your lawyers is truly confidential; no-one, not even a regulator or prosecutor can see it. This is protected by the right to privacy under Article 8, and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 (which includes the right to access to lawyers).’
Legal Week, 13th August 2014
Source: www.legalweek.com
M v Times Newspapers Ltd and others [2014] EWCA Civ 1132; [2014] WLR (D) 371
‘The decision of a court to allow publication of a report which might lead to the identification of a person who had been arrested but not charged with any offence and was not a party to criminal proceedings would not be interfered with unless the court, in carrying out the evaluative exercise of balancing the competing public interest of freedom of expression in a report of court proceedings against the person’s right to private and family life, had erred in principle or reached a conclusion which was plainly wrong.’
WLR Daily, 1st August 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Two lawyers working for News International at the height of the phone hacking scandal are being prosecuted by the legal profession’s regulator for allegedly seeking to cover up the scale of criminality at the News of the World.’
The Guardian, 9th August 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A man arrested but never charged over sexual offences has failed to persuade the Court of Appeal that newspapers should be barred from identifying him.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 5th August 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The introduction of the controversial draft Data Retention Regulations 2014 has already been discussed by my colleague Robin Hopkins in his excellent post last month. The Regulations now have the force of law, having come into force on 31 July 2014 – see the Regulations here. In his post, Robin made the point that, following the judgment in Digital Rights Ireland, there were two methods for curtailing the infringement of privacy rights presupposed by the existing communications data retention (CDR) regime: either cut back on the data retention requirements provided for under the legislation, so as generally to limit the potential for interference with privacy rights, or introduce more robust safeguards with a view to ensuring that any interference with privacy rights is proportionate and otherwise justified. The Government, which has evidently opted for the latter approach in the new Regulations, will now need to persuade a somewhat sceptical public that the safeguards which have been adopted in the legislation strike the right balance as between the protection of privacy rights on the one hand and the imperative to support criminal law enforcement functions on the other.’
Panopticon, 5th August 2014
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
Google is set to restrict search terms to a link to a Wikipedia article, in the first request under Europe’s controversial new “right to be forgotten” legislation to affect the 110m-page encyclopaedia.
The Guardian, 2nd August 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Google knows what you’re looking for. Facebook knows what you like. Sharing is the norm, and secrecy is out. But what is the psychological and cultural fallout from the end of privacy?’
The Guardian, 3rd August 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Most people have moments in their past that they would prefer not to be in the spotlight. What if, when you enter your name in Google, the first thing that comes up is a link to an episode that you would like to be forgotten. Can it be forgotten? If it can, should it be? Should you have a right to have the link deleted? And based on what procedure?’
Daily Telegraph, 31st July 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Victims of spam message companies could find it easier to win compensation under plans backed by the Information Commissioner’s Office’
Daily Telegraph, 29th July 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The ex-Formula 1 boss Max Mosley is suing Google for continuing to publish images of him with prostitutes at a sex party.’
Full story
The Independent, 30th July 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A “right to be forgotten” – enforcing the removal of online material – is wrong in principle and unworkable in practice, a parliamentary committee has said.’
The Guardian, 30th July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Rhys Ifans and Michael Barrymore have both received undisclosed damages at the close of their phone hacking lawsuit.’
The Independent, 22nd July 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The Law Commission has this month recommended that a full law reform project should be carried out “in order to create a principled and clear legal structure for data sharing, which will meet the needs of society”.’
Local Government Lawyer, 21st July 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘It is suggested that the USA PATRIOT Act, legislation swiftly enacted by US Congress in the wake of the 11 September 2001 terrorist act was a “backronym” designed to play on the national pride around at the time. Clever political manoeuvring? Potentially so.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 16th July 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘In the context of the draft EU General Data Protection Regulations (the Draft Regulations) – which will replace the current EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (the Directive) – should the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) Google Spain “Right to be forgotten” ruling be welcomed? Is it testing the “right to be forgotten” contained in the Draft Regulations before it is enshrined in legislation, or does it simply amount to the clumsy implementation of a “new” right without a democratic debate on its wider implications?’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 17th July 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025