Freedom of information Request. Two appeals were heard together as they concerned common issues regarding s14 of the . In the second appeal, issues arose regarding requests for information made under reg12 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, SI2004-331. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, gave guidance on the meaning of 'vexatious' and 'manifestly unreasonable' and whether past requests could be taken into account in considering whether a fresh request was vexatious.
Proceeds of crime Unlawful conduct. The second defendant objected to the inclusion of the matrimonial home in the claimant National Crime Agency's application for a civil recovery order (CRO) in respect of seven properties, four bank accounts and a Rolex watch. The Queen's Bench Division held that there was an overwhelming case against the first defendant for misconduct consisting of drug-dealing, money laundering and mortgage fraud, such that all the property was recoverable. With respect to the matrimonial home, the statutory exception to its inclusion in the CRO in s266 of the Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 had not been made out.
Employment Dismissal. The employment tribunal dismissed the employee's claims for wrongful dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal and whistle blowing claims. On appeal by the employee against those findings, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the tribunal's decision, taking the view, among other things, that the employee had been unable to demonstrate that the tribunal had fallen into error in finding that the matters relied on by the employee did not constitute protected disclosures.
Extradition Extradition order. The appellant appealed against the judge's decision, finding that the various procedural requirements were established for her extradition to the United States to face trial for manufacture, importation and distribution of steroids and human growth hormones, and money laundering offences. The Divisional Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that extradition would not constitute a disproportionate interference with the appellant's family life, together with that of her daughter, contrary to art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, it would not be oppressive, given her mental condition and risk of suicide.
Freedom of Information Information. A journalist had requested copies of the invoices submitted in support of expenses claims made by Members of Parliament. Rather than providing copies, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) transcribed the information from the invoices and provided that. The Information Commissioner determined that there had been information contained within the invoices over and above that included in the transcripts, and the failure to provide the invoices themselves had been a breach of s1(1) of the . That determination was upheld on appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, having considered what was meant by 'information' and the means of communication required of a public authority in complying with its duty, dismissed the IPSA's appeal for the reasons given by the Commissioner.
Criminal law Proceeds of crime. The Supreme Court, in allowing the prosecution's appeal, held that an arrangement between a fraudster (B), who had allegedly duped victims into buying into non-existent motor insurance, and the defendant, who had set up two bank accounts into which the victims had paid money, was capable of constituting an offence under of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Accordingly, a ruling by a trial judge that the defendant had no case to answer, which had been upheld in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, was erroneous. What rendered the property 'criminal property' in the present case was not the arrangement made between B and the defendant, but the fact that it had been obtained from the victims by deception.
Data protection Processing of information. Google had sought, to set aside the permission that had been granted to the claimants to serve their claim form out of the jurisdiction in their action which alleged misuse of private information, breach of confidence and breach of the (the DPA). The action for breach of confidence was set aside. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed Google's appeal as the pleaded actions were clearly arguable and not pointless. The court held that misuse of private information should be recognised as a tort for the purposes of service out of the jurisdiction and that, in order to make s13(2) of the DPA compatible with EU law, that section had to be disapplied, with the consequence that compensation would be recoverable under s13(1) for any damage suffered as a result of a contravention by a data controller of the requirements of the DPA.
*R (on the application of Evans) and another v Attorney General (Campaign for Freedom of Information Intervening)
Freedom of information Exempt information. The Attorney General appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, quashing a certificate issued pursuant to s53(2) of the and reg18(6) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, SI2004-3391, in respect of the disclosure of communications passing between The Prince of Wales and ministers in various government departments. The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the communications requested were not excepted from any duty of disclosure to the claimant under s53 of the Act. Further, the effect of Directive (EC) 2003-4 (on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90-313-EEC) was to invalidate the certificate in relation to the environmental information, but not in relation to the non-environmental information in the advocacy correspondence.
Contract Illegality. The claimant carried on business as business transfer agents. It was common ground that the activities of the claimant fell within the definition of the expression 'estate agency work' in of the Estate Agents Act 1979. The relevance of that was the reference to 'estate agents' in the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, . The parties entered into an agreement and a dispute arose. The claimant brought a claim based on the agreement. The defendant contended that the agreement was not enforcible for illegality. Applying established law, the Queen's Bench Division held that the agreement was illegal and was consequently unenforceable.
*R (on the application of Catt) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; R (on the application of T) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Human rights Right to respect for private and family life. The present appeals concerned the systematic collection and retention by police authorities of electronic data about individuals. The Supreme Court, in allowing the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's appeals, held that there had been no disproportionate interference with the respondents' rights under art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Retention of material concerning the first respondent was justified by the legitimate requirements of police intelligence gathering and, as to the second respondent, the retention policy had been flexible enough to allow for information to be deleted when retaining it would no longer serve any useful policing purpose.