If requestor are undertaking a criminal investigation they should make a
request declaring the fact via a section 29 DPA.declaration.
A disclosure can then be made with a measure of safety. The predjudice tests
holds up if the recipient of the request is the only source of the
information.
Personally I would decline response along the lines of Jethro and Margarita
responses simply taking a brutal commercial view of why be helpful unless
there are benefits to the disclosee organisation. In this case there appears
to only be risks.
David Wyatt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lewis, Chris G." <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [data-protection] FW: [data-protection] Disclosure or not?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues on
> behalf of Tim Trent
> Subject: Re: [data-protection] FW: [data-protection] Disclosure or not?
>
> >The problem you face is that you have received this data unlawfully (it
> >was
> >transferred to you without consent) and thus it is unlawful for you to
> >process it.
>
>
> Could it not be said that the company's transfer of the letter to the
> clinic/hospital was exempt under the "prevention and detection of crime"
> head? The chap's clearly playing hooky from work, and is therefore
> stealing money from them, and they're trying to get proof?
>
>
>
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
Any queries about sending or receiving message please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|