Dear All,

 

We have seen previous discussion on this list about whether custodial sentences would be useful to punish s.55 offences or whether it would have a deterrent effect.  For the most part, the focus has been on the press who often obtain information through means that could be considered to breach s.55 though it is defended on public interest grounds.

 

The situation described below seems to be a different magnitude as the intent does not appear ultimately benign. The act appears to have been done with criminal intent.  If the DPA s.55 has not yet been pursued, does anyone know why? Is this something for the ICO to initiate for the Data Controller or the Data subject? Is the DPA a secondary weapon in prosecution terms as other criminal sanction with greater penalties are used  instead?

 

Receptionist gave grooming victim’s records to accused
A social services worker illegally accessed private records about a sex-grooming victim to sabotage the prosecution of the suspected perpetrators, the Times reveals today. Mahdiya Khan, a receptionist for Lancashire County Council, was one of several friends and relatives of the alleged abuser who tried to destroy the case against him. They threatened witnesses, gave gifts and money to the girl at the centre of the case and persuaded her to sign a false statement retracting her allegations. An initial trial collapsed because the victim refused to give evidence while a retrial only saw one of the six defendants convicted of child abduction. Lancashire County Council said that all staff who have access to restricted information receive appropriate training and advice. Khan was suspended and later sacked from her job.
Times p2

Please note the Times  has a paywall so I could not read the full article. 

 

I would be interested to know what would be the liability of the Data Controller in this instance since they have said they had provided training and advice.

 

Best,

 

Lawrence