Heather Peto v The Information Commissioner

Heather Peto v The Information Commissioner

Permission to apply for judicial review is refused because the ICO's warning was not an actionable threat, the prosecution decision was within the ICO's discretion and not irrational or unlawful, and there was no breach of duty of candour. The claims lacked reasonable prospects of success and, in part, were out of time.

Parties
Claimant: Heather Peto; Defendant: The Information Commissioner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Oral Application for Permission
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
GDPR Breaches, Judicial Review, Public Sector Equality Duty, Duty of Candour, Standing Under Human Rights Act, Prosecution Discretion
Data Protection Human Rights Administrative Law GDPR Breaches Judicial Review Public Sector Equality Duty Duty of Candour Standing Under Human Rights Act +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heather Peto

Claimant

The Information Commissioner

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Oral Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ICO's warning to the claimant regarding s.170 Data Protection Act 2018 constitutes a threat or actionable decision
  2. 2 Whether the ICO's decision not to prosecute the Labour Party or LGBT+ Labour for alleged GDPR breaches was irrational or unlawful
  3. 3 Whether the ICO breached the duty of candour in its explanation for not prosecuting

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to apply for judicial review is refused because the ICO's warning was not an actionable threat, the prosecution decision was within the ICO's discretion and not irrational or unlawful, and there was no breach of duty of candour. The claims lacked reasonable prospects of success and, in part, were out of time.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs of £1,620 within 56 days from date of service of the order.
  • Other applications, including costs capping, not considered due to refusal of permission.