We would like to wish all our readers a pleasant Christmas and Happy New Year. We appreciate your support and hope it will continue through the following Year.
Content will be published in the second week of January following a short winter break.
Month: December 2018
Citation: Drone hysteria and the serial privacy invaders of the British Press – Hugh Tomlinson QC
An excellent post from the INFORRM Blog’s Hugh Tomlinson QC analysing the Gatwick incident involving drone use and the privacy issues arising from press reporting and investigations by the Sussex Police.
The news last week was dominated by the “Gatwick drones” with the country’s second busiest airport being closed three times in three days and 140,000 passengers being stranded. On Friday 21 December 2018 a local couple were arrested “following a tip off“.
View original post 811 more words
A brief introduction to the concept of privacy under English law – Part III
For context please see Part’s I and II of our analysis.
From the hallmark case of Campbell and the development of breach of privacy as an action, it is clear that the integration of privacy as a concept in English law is still in its formative years. In Part III we consider some of the significant cases post-Campbell to date, bringing into relief key issues and developments in privacy law, many of which are ongoing or merit further consideration by the courts. In particular, the broad nature of an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy becomes clear (covering issues of children’s privacy and biometric data retention) and the degree to which this can be qualified against other rights is explored.
Citation: Mooting the reformation of Canadian privacy laws
We would like to refer readers to an excellent article from the blog of Michael Geist an authoritative academic from the University of Ottowa, tackling privacy law issues in Canada. The piece considers recent movements by the Canadian Privacy Comissioner in legislative reform and the importance of robust and consistent enforcement of privacy laws.
Imperfect solutions for access to justice -success fees are no longer recoverable in English defamation and privacy cases
On 29 November 2018, the Government published its response to the 2013 consultation on costs protection in defamation and privacy claims. In particular, the written statement by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice summarizes the amendments to costs provisions, raising access to justice concerns.
In short, the Government has decided to implement s.44 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LAPSO) Act 2012, making claimant lawyers success fees under conditional fee agreements (“CFAs”) unrecoverable from defendants in defamation and privacy cases commencing 6 April 2019. The consolation is that after-the-event insurance (“ATE”) fees remain recoverable. This article considers how these changes perpetuate imperfect solutions that harm access to justice.
Citation: Case Law, India: Puttaswamy v Union of India, Supreme Court recognises a constitutional right to privacy in a landmark judgment – Hugh Tomlinson QC
A landmark judgment by all accounts, this article is an excellent distillation of the key takeaways.
On 24 August 2017, a nine judge bench of the Supreme Court of India handed down its decision in the important constititutional case of Puttaswamy v Union of India [pdf]. In a remarkable and wide ranging 547 page judgment the Court ruled unanimously that privacy is a constitutionally protected right in India. This is landmark case which is likely to lead to constitutional challenges to a wide range of Indian legislation.
View original post 1,271 more words
A brief introduction to the concept of privacy under English law – Part II
In Part II we consider the legislative framework under English law which enshrined privacy and the recent development of the action for misuse of private information, underpinned by privacy as a value.
The right to privacy was codified into legislation at European Union level in the European Convention of Human Rights, which provides a higher level interpretive layer of guidance on the application of such rights. However, these provisions required integration into English law via legislation to be effective. In taking the lead from the European authorities Parliament passed the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”) to achieve such harmonisation. Article 8 of the HRA addresses the right to a private life:
- Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
- There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
The Privacy Perspective 