Right to be Forgotten in UK Law
-
NT 1 and another v Google LLC (Information Commissioner intervening)
“
In summary, a defendant who is sued for defamation in respect of a publication imputing the commission by the claimant of a criminal offence which is the subject of a spent conviction can rely on any reporting privilege that may exist and/or on a defence of truth or honest opinion, unless the publication is proved to have been made with malice. In defamation, a conviction is conclusive proof of guilt, against a claimant: Civil Evidence Act 1968, s 13.
-
The King on the application of the 3 Million and Open Rights Group v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Legality of statutory restrictions on data protection rights in the context of immigration control. Law duty on a public authority. Data subject. Secretary of state“
Before I turn to the grounds, I must address a general submission put at the forefront of the arguments made by Leading Counsel for the Claimants on Ground 1. I substantially accept that submission but how it applies to the specific terms of the Immigration Exemption will be a matter to be addressed in more detail below.
-
The Open Rights Group v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
“
This approach will tend to make the scope and operation of a derogation more transparent, improve the quality of decision-making, and facilitate review of its proportionality.
I would agree with the Judge that the Immigration Exemption addresses an important aspect of the public interest, that falls within the scope of Article 23(1)(e). In any event, the term “legislative measure”, whatever its precise scope, must refer to something other than a non-binding code promulgated by a regulator that counts as a relevant consideration for the purposes of administrative decision-making.
I have indicated a provisional view that the legislative measure in question must be part and parcel of the legislation that creates the derogation, but I do not think that this is the point at which to decide what form the “specific provisions” should take. I merely note Mr Knight's observation that, on the face of it, s 16 of the DPA 2018 confers wide-ranging powers on the respondents to vary the terms of provisions made under Schedule 2.
-
The Queen (on the application of Maha El Gizouli) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
“
The claimant cannot make good any claim that her son's treatment violates the ECHR. She must rely upon a positive obligation on the state to refrain from taking measures which cause her intense distress. Yet there is no “direct and immediate link” between the measures and the claimant's private and/or family life” ( Botta v Italy [1998] 26 EHRR 251 at [33]–[35]). As Sir James submits, here there are various causes for the claimant's distress, most noticeably the voluntary actions of her son.
-
M (Children)
“
That is not the approach of courts where religion is not in play. Where an intransigent parent is fostering in their child a damaging view of the other parent, and thereby alienating the child from the other parent and denying contact between them, the court does not hesitate to invoke robust methods where that is required in the child's interests.
-
Data Protection Act 2018
... ... from data subject: information to be provided) ,(iii) Article 20 (right to data portability) , and(iv) Article 21(1) (objections to processing) ... ...
-
Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem (Possessions, etc.) Act 1540
... ... Ministers, professed of or in the same by the pretense or in the right of the said religion, and all and ... singulargoods, chattels, debts, ... subjects being professed in the saide religion, bee negligently forgotten or omitted out of this present Acte for lacke of knowlege of their names, ... ...
-
Prince and Princess of Wales Act 1736
... ... be forgotten; and well knowing that by an Act made in the first Year of the Reign of ... in Trust for his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors) all such Right, Title, Interest and Demand whatsoever, which they or any of them have, or ... ...
-
Offences within the Court Act 1541
... ... such Cases hath been long delayed, and sometimes their Offences forgotten and not remembred, and so escape unpunished:' (4) Be it therefore enacted ... whom such Person and Persons shall be so found guilty, to have his Right Hand stricken off before the said Lord great Master, or Lord Steward, if ... ...
-
Retention in “the right to be forgotten” scenario: a records management examination
Purpose: This paper, through examining the judgment on Case C-131/12 and the European Union (EU)’s Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation, aims to demonstrate to the records management (...
-
Google as a political subject: the right to be forgotten debate 2014-2016
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to create knowledge on how Google and Google search are discursively constructed as a political subject suitable or not suitable for governing in the debate re...
- Impact of the CJEU's Right to Be Forgotten
- The CJEU's Decision in the Google ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ Case: Editors' Introduction
-
UK first: right-to-be-forgotten notice issued against Google Inc.
The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’) has published what appears to be its first public enforcement notice based upon “the right to be forgotten” against Google Inc. The “right to be f...
-
UK House of Lords Sub-Committee Criticizes the “Right to Be Forgotten”
A Sub-Committee of the UK House of Lords published a report that strongly criticizes recent case law regarding the so-called "right to be forgotten" and calls for that right to be omitted from the ...
-
UK’s First Ever Right To Be Forgotten Enforcement : Google In The Firing Line Again
The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has made what appears to be its first “right to be forgotten” enforcement action against Google Inc. The ICO issued the notice on 18 August 2015, or...
-
UK’s First Ever Right To Be Forgotten Enforcement: Google In the Firing Line Again
The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has made what appears to be its first “right to be forgotten” enforcement action against Google Inc. The ICO issued the notice on 18 August 2015, or...