The original seems to have gone astray so a repeat is forwarded below.
E-mail does not seem all that reliable at times.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Welton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 August 2004 10:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Bemused - Assistance requested
Davidwyatt on 05 August 2004 at 22:02 said:-
> Id raised the question on this term 'offence' with lawyers
> and was advised
> it is used to define criminal offences.
Thank you. A list member also advised the same off-list.
It seems, from what has been said so far then, that organisations may
utilise Sch.7 11(1) not to disclose personal data which would expose the
organisation/member to action for a criminal offence. The same does not
apply to a civil legal matter. One has to assume parliament
considered/discussed various aspects of Sch.7 11(1) very carefully when
wording those paragraphs.
The Sch.7. 11(2) item is restrictive to DPA offences and makes any material
provided in response to a subject access request inadmissible in proceedings
under the DPA 1998. One could possibly say, dependent on what any s.7
disclosure was, it was a sort of 'get out of jail free card' for DPA 1998
criminal offences, I wonder if civil proceedings would still be open, on the
face of it, it would seem so.
Being an administrative issue of the DPA 1998, Sch.7 11(2) seems to assure
that s.7 rights are not compromised for fear of revealing a breach of the
DPA. I wonder if any organisations have a mechanism in place, to check if
evidential material relevant to any DPA action against them forms part of
any s.7 response.
It does appear increasingly important that DPO's become aware of some legal
terminology, as well as gaining an understanding of the implications of some
of the politics of the judiciary and Political management of the justice
arena, if they are to accurately advise their CEO's in sensitive matters
such as this, or even be sufficiently aware to recognise issues and
arrange/seek further advice. Certainly the courts insistence that they are
the ones who will determine the validity of unlawfully obtained evidence
would seem to completely circumvent the s.7 protections contained within
Sch.7 11(1 & 2).
Ian W
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|