>The thoughts about natural justice is reasonable, but does not have legal
> merit in my view. Our own Data Protection laws allow the accuser,
> certainly
> in the early stages in a matter such as this, to remain anonymous. Should
> it come to court that is a different matter. In fact, unless chapter and
> verse prove otherwise, the law requires the person receiving the complaint
> to keep the data private.
>
>If, for example, I complain to you about an employee in your organisation's
> behaviour, you do not have the right without my permission to pass my
> details as accuser to the party concerned. They are a third party, and my
> data must be treated as private.
>
>In an internal disciplinary case where one employee complains about
another,
> the evidence is usually presented anonymously, unless the accuser appears
> in
> person. Names are usually expunged.
>
I think you are generally wrong about this, Tim. If, for example, we were
faced with an anonymous accusation against a student in the University's
disciplinary procedure (or I was representing a worker in an employment
context), I would argue that unless there was a powerful reason why the
identity of the accuser was to be withheld and we were to be prevented from
cross-examining that it would be impossible to dispose of the matter fairly.
There might be a bit of leeway at the margins in the employment context but
I think the University would accept that fairness requires knowing the case
against you and being able to challenge it. (I shall hold my breath and see
if a correction appears.) An accuser should be told at an early stage that
their identity is likely to be disclosed.

I think that perhaps where you are complaining as a consumer and simply
seeking an improvement in service you might expect your name and contact
details to be withheld, so long as you weren't seeking adverse consequences
for a particular worker. You would accept the limitation on the results of
your complaint. You might have expected the substance of your complaint to
be passed on without directly involving you (unless you were complaining
that it was your copyright that was being infringed) because the issue
wouldn't necessarily involve you.

Tim, Section 7 of the DPA envisages the balancing of the competing interests
of data subjects and doesn't hold out a promise of anonymity. Would that
necessarily be compatible with 'fair processing'?

Paul

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
      available to the world wide web community at large at
      http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
      If you wish to leave this list please send the command
       leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
            All user commands can be found at : -
    www.jiscmail.ac.uk/user-manual/summary-user-commands.htm
  (all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^