Data protection Subject access request. The Queen's Bench Division allowed an application by the claimants under CPRPt8, and held that the defendant had failed to comply with its subject access request duties pursuant to s7 of the where neither the crime exemption nor legal privilege exemption applied, and refused to exercise its discretion in the defendant's favour.
Charity Appeal. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, considered the appeal of the appellant charity and its trustees against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review of the respondent Charity Commission's decision to initiate an inquiry, under s46 of the and of a production order, issued under s52 of the Act, on the sole ground that they should have appealed to the First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber). It dismissed the appeal in respect of the inquiry decision, and allowed the appeal in respect of the production order, holding that s320 of the Act did not permit an appeal on the grounds that a s52 order had been unlawfully made.
European Union Directives. The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 11(1), read in conjunction with , and , of Directive (EC) 2005-60, as amended by . The request had been made in proceedings between Safe Interenvos SA (Safe), a payment institution, and three credit institutions, concerning the closure by those credit institutions of the accounts held by Safe because they had suspected money laundering.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Queen's Bench Division refused the defendant banks' application to strike out the claimant's second set of proceedings which included defamation claims, on the basis that they were an abuse of process. The court found that although the claimant could have applied at various points to bring earlier publications into the first proceedings, he could not be criticised for not making a claim in respect of any cause of action which had not by then arisen.
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.