Information Commissioner v Islington Borough Council [2002] EWHC 1036 (Admin) (24th May, 2002)

Information Commissioner v Islington Borough Council [2002] EWHC 1036 (Admin) (24th May, 2002)

There was insufficient evidence of 'use' of data for charges two to seven, but sufficient evidence that the council, through its officers, acted recklessly in using data for an unregistered purpose in the first charge. The omission to renew registration, despite reminders, and subsequent use of data constituted recklessness by the council as a corporate body.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1036 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Information Commissioner; Defendant: Islington Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated (criminal) / Post Dismissal of Charges at Magistrates Court; Appeal to Divisional Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; case remitted for hearing on first charge only; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Data Protection Act 1984, Corporate Criminal Liability, Recklessness, Use Vs Holding of Data, Vicarious Liability
Criminal Law Data Protection Law Administrative Law Data Protection Act 1984 Corporate Criminal Liability Recklessness Use Vs Holding of Data Vicarious Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Information Commissioner

Claimant

Islington Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated (criminal) / Post Dismissal of Charges at Magistrates Court; Appeal to Divisional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence of 'use' of data for the purposes alleged in charges two to seven under section 5 of the Data Protection Act 1984
  2. 2 Whether the council acted knowingly or recklessly in using data for an unregistered purpose (first charge)
  3. 3 Whether omission to renew registration or systems failure can constitute recklessness for corporate liability under section 5

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient evidence of 'use' of data for charges two to seven, but sufficient evidence that the council, through its officers, acted recklessly in using data for an unregistered purpose in the first charge. The omission to renew registration, despite reminders, and subsequent use of data constituted recklessness by the council as a corporate body.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; case remitted for hearing on first charge only; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Case remitted to Deputy District Judge to continue hearing in relation to the first summons (B matter) where use was admitted.
  • No order as to costs.