PRIVACY & DATA PROTECTION
injunction was appropriate, but the
Judge warned TRK that if the case
came back before him, and involved
further argument about whether it
was proper to disclose information of
the affair to his wife, he would expect
further and better evidence as to why
the injunction should continue. The
judgment makes clear that individuals
having an affair cannot always expect
the court to grant an injunction to
prevent their spouse from being told.
Police to pay £9,000 to
former officer for accessing
travel information
n The Metropolitan and Manchester
police forces have been ordered to pay a
total of £9,000 in damages to a former
officer whose personal data the forces accessed while she was on sick leave. Andrea Brown travelled to Barbados while
on sick leave without notifying her line
manager – a breach of procedures. The
Metropolitan Police sought and received
information from an agency managed by
Manchester Police, and from an airline.
This included information about her
trip, her date of birth, passport number
and details, details of flights taken by
her over six years, and information about
her 14-year-old daughter who was travelling with her. This was then used in
police disciplinary proceedings against
Ms Brown. The police forces admitted
a breach of the Data Protection Act and
wrongful interference with her privacy
rights under Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The
Judge also found misuse of private information. The Judge found the breaches caused Ms Brown shock and distress.
Taking into account the fact that police
forces should be expected to obey the
law, but in this case had pursued the
requests in a cavalier fashion and had
provided the information almost casually, but also that the information had
not been widely spread or sought for
financial gain, he awarded Ms Brown
£9,000, of which £6,000 will be paid by
the Metropolitan Police and £3,000 by
Manchester Police.
28 | zoom-in Winter 2016
Prince Harry criticises
media ‘harassment’
is both a criminal offence and a civil
wrong, meaning an individual can sue
for damages and, importantly, get an
injunction to stop the offending behavn Prince Harry earlier this month
iour. The Protection from Harassment
took the unusual step of issuing a stateAct 1997 has been used to protect inment about the media’s treatment of his
dividuals from intrusion, in particular
girlfriend Meghan Markle. The statephysical harassment by, for example,
ment, put out by Kensington Palace,
paparazzi photographers. Seeking to
was also the first official confirmation
gain entry into someone’s house is, of
of the pair’s relationship. The statement
course, a criminal offence in itself.
said she had been subjected to a ‘wave
Where private material is published
of abuse and harassment’. While Prince
without consent, individuals may be
Harry is quite used to media interest in
able to make a regulatory complaint
his life and has rarely taken action even
and may be able to sue for misuse of
over false stories, the latest coverage had
private information or breach of con‘seen a line crossed’. Markle had been
fidence. Breach of confidence is more
subjected, among other things, to pieces
likely to be relevant where information
with racial undertones; racist and sexist
has ‘leaked’ from someone who was in a
social media comment; attempts by reposition of trust, such as an employee.
porters and photographers to get into
The Data Protection Act 1998 may also
her home, leading to the police being
provide a remedy. However, whether
called; her ex-boyfriend being offered
action is brought under misuse of pribribes to sell stories about her; and all
vat e information, breach of confidence
her loved ones being bombarded. Prince
or under the Data Protection Act, or all
Harry called for the press to pause and
three, if there is an overriding public
reflect on their actions. The statement
interest in the publication of the inforsaid: ‘He knows commentators will say
mation, for example because it exthis is “the price she has to pay”
poses wrongdoing or hypocand that “this is all part of
risy, the media is likely
the game”. He strongly
to have a good defence.
disagrees. This is not
The same would be
a game - it is her life
true of any regulaand his.’
‘This is not a
tory complaint: an
“Publishing a
game – it is her
overriding
pubstatement of this
lic interest would
nature is an unusual
life and his’
trump privacy rights.
move, but it perhaps
An individual may
reflects the options
sue for defamation where
open to Prince Harry
stories tarnish a person’s
and his girlfriend. Although
reputation and cause that individlegal remedies exist where the
ual serious harm. However, where the
media’s actions are unlawful, there is no
media can prove such stories are sublegal way of stopping press interest in
stantially true, they are likely to have a
such a high-profile relationship of this
good defence, so in most cases the law
nature. Individuals do sometimes issue
of defamation is only likely to provide
notices to the press, for example asking
an effective remedy where stories are
not to be contacted, or warning that
untrue (and cause serious harm).
they believe they are being harassed.
Given the potential difficulties of
The main press regulator IPSO will
pursuing legal actions and the cost,
circulate such requests to media falling
Prince Harry’s public appeal for a more
under its jurisdiction, but the notices
restrained approach to coverage of his
have no formal legal status.
relationship may well be sensible. PubWhere the media’s actions are unlic sympathy for the couple may in itself
lawful, individuals may have number of
influence the media’s behaviour.
legal remedies. Harassment in the UK