Police Disclosure of information. The Administrative Court granted the claimant declaratory relief on the basis that he had no means of seeking to persuade a public authority that disclosure of two reprimands for offences of sexual activity with a child, issued when he had been aged 13, had not been relevant or necessary. Accordingly, there were insufficient safeguards and the interference with the claimant's rights under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been in accordance with the law.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division in a claim for libel by the claimant against the defendant newspaper, considered the 'repetition rule' and made a preliminary ruling on the issue of the meaning of the words in an article published in the paper and online version of the newspaper.
Criminal law Conspiracy. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that the defendants' convictions for conspiracy to convert criminal property, contrary to s1(1) of the and s327(1) of the had not been unsafe. The judge's ruling that there had been a case to answer was correct. Both elements of the offences had been potentially present and there had been evidence upon which the defendants could have been convicted. However, the judge had fallen into a degree of error when having sentenced three of the defendants for their offending.
Extradition Extradition order. The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against orders for his extradition to France to serve a sentence of five years' imprisonment, but directed that the importation of cash could not be relied on, as it did not meet the test of dual criminality. It held that the same level of particularity was required for conviction and accusation European arrest warrants, and that a factual inaccuracy did not render the warrant invalid.
Tort Cause of action. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendant's appeal against, among other things, the finding that it was liable in misuse of private information and-or for breach of the . The judge had been right to hold that the claimants, three children of a well-known musician, had had a reasonable expectation in the privacy of the photographs and that their rights under art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had outweighed the defendant's right under art10 of the Convention.
*R (on the application of Davis MP and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Open Rights Group and others intervening)
Data protection Processing of information. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in considering an appeal regarding s1 of the gave its provisional view on the appeal and referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling.
R (on the application of W, X, Y, and Z) v Secretary of State for Health (British Medical Association intervening)
National Health Service Medical records. An application for judicial review of the lawfulness of the guidance to the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2011, SI2011-1556, which permitted the transfer of patient data regarding non-United Kingdom resident patients to, ultimately, the Home Office for the purpose of consideration of immigration sanctions, was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimants' appeal. The information transferred was generally not private information vis-a-vis the Secretary of State for Health and the Home Office. The transfer was not ultra vires the NHS bodies and the Secretary of State and, finally, any interference with the claimants' rights under art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was in accordance with the law.
European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that, on the proper construction of of Council Directive (EC) 95-46, , which found that the United States ensured an adequate level of data protection, was invalid.
European Union Data protection. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of arts 4(1)(a) and 28(1), (3) and (6) of . The request had been made in proceedings between Weltimmo, a company which had its registered office in Slovakia, and the Hungarian data protection authority concerning a fine imposed by the latter for infringement of Hungarian Law CXII (on the right to self-determination as regards information and freedom of information), which had transposed into Hungarian law.
European Union Freedom of movement. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling, deciding that , and of Directive (EC) 95-46 had to be interpreted as precluding national measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allowed a public administrative body of a member state to transfer personal data to another public administrative body and their subsequent processing, without the data subjects having been informed of that transfer or processing.