John Hughes on 12 May 2004 at 09:45 said:-
> A group email has recently been sent to all members of staff to inform
> them that a former member of staff is currently in court charged with
> alleged serious misconduct....... .....I have queried this on a number
> of counts, not least that it was not necessary to disclose all this
> information to all members of staff.
If the individual is 'charged' with an offence which has not yet been
finalised by the courts then sub-judice rules may well apply to some of the
material. (sub judice - Under judicial consideration and therefore
prohibited from public discussion elsewhere. [Fowler, H. W. Fowler, F. G.,
1991. In: Allen, R.E. (Eds.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current
English. adapted by H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler, The Concise Oxford
Dictionary. BCA, London, p. 1214.] Disclosure of some material could well be
a contempt of court.) Legal opinion may be needed regarding the disclosed
material to determine if it were sub judice. I would have thought the
organisations solicitors (involved in the case) would have already been
involved in authoring/authorising such an e-mail.
Having said that, would the proportionality of the disclosure not need to be
justified in relation to the purpose it is intended to accomplish given
regard to all the facts of the case. E.g. if the level of disclosure was
necessary to safeguard against malicious disruption of the entire
computers/communications infrastructure for the organisation and no other
method or safeguard existed, the disclosure could possibly be justified.
(But question why no other resolution was possible, as there is indication
of a clear organisational weakness which probably needs addressing)
In the example scenario, as in most, a number of variables (including other
methods of achieving the same end) logically appear to always need careful
consideration against Principle 3 if the organisation is to protect itself
whilst promoting its own interests.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> John Hughes
> Sent: 12 May 2004 09:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Public domain if disclosed in court?
>
>
> A bit of advice please ...........
>
> A group email has recently been sent to all members of staff
> to inform them that a former member of staff is currently in
> court charged with alleged serious misconduct. The email
> names the person, includes details of the charges and details
> of when the person worked here and in which department.
>
> I have queried this on a number of counts, not least that it
> was not necessary to disclose all this information to all
> members of staff. The response has been that it was done to
> inform everyone of the facts in case they field an external
> call - also that the information is in the public domain as
> it is being quoted in open court.
>
> Can anyone give me some guidance? Does the fact that this
> person is currently up in court for "alleged" offences
> justify disclosure of both personal data (employment details)
> and sensitive personal data (offences) to everyone in his
> previous place of employment on the grounds that it is now in
> the public domain?
>
> Regards
> John
>
> John Hughes
> Data Protection Officer
> Extension 5671
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|