Tele2 Sverige AB v Post- och telestyrelsen; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Watson and others
European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that of Directive (EC) 2002-58, as amended by , read in the light of arts 7, 8, 11 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, had to be interpreted as precluding national legislation governing the protection and security of traffic and location data and, in particular, access of the competent national authorities to the retained data, where the objective pursued by that access, in the context of fighting crime, was not restricted solely to fighting serious crime, where access was not subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority, and where there was no requirement that the data concerned should be retained within the European Union.
Sentence Confiscation order. The Supreme Court, in allowing the prosecution's appeal against the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division's decision quashing a confiscation order, considered whether and when a breach of statutory procedural terms for the process of post-conviction confiscation under the (POCA), deprived the court of jurisdiction to make such an order. The court, having considered, among other things, ss 14 and 15 of POCA, held that a procedural failure connected with postponement of confiscation proceedings was not the sole ground for quashing a confiscation order. The correct analysis was not that a procedural defect deprived the court of jurisdiction, but that a failure to honour the procedure set down by the statute raised the very real possibility that it would be unfair to make an order. The court held that, in the present case, there was no obstacle to the imposition of the confiscation order in circumstances where the order had eventually been made well within the requisite time of two years and in circumstances where it had not been suggested that any unfairness had befallen the defendant in consequence of the irregularities which had occurred. The confiscation order was restored.
Statement of case Amendment. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal against a decision refusing him permission to: (i) amend his claim for judicial review, and requiring him to instead bring a new claim; and (ii) bring a claim for judicial review arising out of his dissatisfaction with the disclosure of data provided to him under the . Whilst the appeal was academic, the court entertained it in order to provide guidance on the important procedural points raised by the first of the two decisions appealed.
Human rights Freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights held that, in assessing whether and to what extent the denial of access to information constituted an interference with an applicant's freedom of expression rights, the relevant considerations were: (i) the purpose of the information request; (ii) the nature of the information sought; (iii) the role of the applicant; and (iv) the readiness and availability of the information. The refusal to provide the applicant non-governmental organisation with the names and number of assignments of public defenders by police departments violated art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
European Union Intellectual property rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding, among other things, that, of Directive (EC) 95-46 had to be interpreted as meaning that a dynamic IP address registered by an online media services provider when a person accessed a website that the provider made accessible to the public constituted personal data within the meaning of that provision, in relation to that provider, where the latter had the legal means which enabled it to identify the data subject with additional data which the internet service provider had about that person.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division, having considered s12 of the and having had regard to the competing rights in arts 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, granted an application by the claimants, Pippa Middleton and James Matthews, to continue an interim injunction to restrain publication of photographs taken from her iCloud account, which had been hacked. The terms of the injunction were broadened to include, not just photographs, but any other information which might have derived from the iCloud account.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the defendant's application for leave to appeal against the judge's refusal to cancel the registration in England, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No36) Regulations 2014, SI2014-3141, of an order made by a French judge which restrained the disposition of the defendant's assets. Under the Council Framework Decision (JHA)2003-577 and the Regulations, a challenge to the substantive reasons for the making of an overseas restraint order might be made only in the courts of the issuing state. The courts of the executing state would not, themselves, consider such a challenge. For those reasons, leave would be granted for the decision of the refused application to be citable in court.
Data protection Processing of information. The Queen's Bench Division allowed the claimant general practitioner's application to prevent the defendant General Medical Council (the GMC) disclosing to a former patient a report obtained in investigating his fitness to practise. The GMC's balancing exercise had fallen into error and the balance had been wrong. Guidance was given for future mixed data cases.
European Union EU Institutions. The General Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP for annulment of Decision 18-c-01-14 of the Council of the European Union, refusing access to certain documents relating to the adoption of of the European Parliament and of the Council. The General Court held that the Council had been correct in its views that the documents at issue concerned legal advice within the meaning of the second indent of of Regulation (EC) No 1049-2001 and that there was no overriding public interest in their disclosure.
Human rights Right to respect for private and family life. The Supreme Court held that the information-sharing provisions of of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 were not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament owing to the fact that in practice they might result in a disproportionate interference with the rights of many children, young persons and their parents, under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights through the sharing of private information.