Geoffrey Driver v Crown Prosecution Service

Geoffrey Driver v Crown Prosecution Service

The CPS email contained personal data relating to the claimant and its disclosure to a member of the public was not necessary or proportionate for law enforcement purposes, breaching the first, second, and sixth data protection principles under Part 3 of the DPA 2018. However, the information was already in the public domain and the claimant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so the misuse of private information and human rights claims failed.

Parties
Claimant: Geoffrey Driver; Defendant: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim for breach of data protection principles upheld; claims for misuse of private information and breach of human rights dismissed.
Legal Topics
Data Protection Act 2018, GDPR, Misuse of Private Information, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Law Enforcement Processing, Quantum of Damages
Data Protection Privacy Human Rights Data Protection Act 2018 GDPR Misuse of Private Information Article 8 ECHR Article 10 ECHR +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Driver

Claimant

Crown Prosecution Service

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the June 2019 CPS email contained the claimant's personal data
  2. 2 Whether the processing was lawful under the DPA 2018
  3. 3 Whether there was misuse of private information

Ratio Decidendi

The CPS email contained personal data relating to the claimant and its disclosure to a member of the public was not necessary or proportionate for law enforcement purposes, breaching the first, second, and sixth data protection principles under Part 3 of the DPA 2018. However, the information was already in the public domain and the claimant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so the misuse of private information and human rights claims failed.

Court Disposition

Claim for breach of data protection principles upheld; claims for misuse of private information and breach of human rights dismissed.

Orders

  • Damages of £250 awarded to the claimant for distress under s.169 DPA 2018.
  • Declaration that the defendant breached the claimant's rights under Part 3 of the DPA 2018.