No I do not think you have missed the point. All these issues were canvassed in the dissenting judgement. In addition the majority has totally fudged the issue of whether applicant had received notice that monitoring may happen, and has really not addressed the impact this has on fairness of processing. Contrast it with the very strict attitude the Court took on notice (admittedly in a different context but the principle is a broad one) in the Bara judgement last year - http://tinyurl.com/zo4snlf
The judgement is not strictly binding and is rather out of tune with other cases in this respect. I would ignore the media hype and continue to do 'the right thing' - at the end of the day fairness and proportionality remains to be considered on the facts of each case. I would tend to regard this as particular to its own facts - an applicant seeking redress when he had deliberately lied about his activities - not so surprising in that sense that the court had little sympathy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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 messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|