Update on my Tribunal hearing re data protection infraction letters

I have had a several inquiries as to how my Tribunal appearance went (see  blog of 6th Feb for details of the subject matter of these proceedings)

Well I was hoping to do a full blog, but Monday's hearing was adjourned and we might have to lock horns at a later stage.

Reading the runes, the MoJ was cross examined for more than 2 hrs in closed session (more than twice as long as timetabled) after which I was told that I may receive something called “non-disputed information” and parts of an email from the European Commission.

I have no idea what this means in practice or indeed whether the MoJ will release anything; at the hearing it was clear that the MoJ was adamant that it does not want to release anything at all.

It also emerged at the open session of the Tribunal that the MoJ invited the European Commission to write a letter to the MoJ expressing its objections to the release of the letters I had requested. The MoJ then gave the Commission's letter as evidence that the MoJ should not release the information to me! I am sure that the MoJ would put a different gloss on the Commission's manufactured evidence, but that is how I see it.

I hope to do a complete report as part of our Update session in April 15th. Those wanting to know about the Regulation itself, we are doing a half day afternoon session on the Regulation on March 18th .

Throughout the whole process which commenced in 2005, I have made mistake after mistake (some of which I am kicking myself about). I hope to do a blog identifying these mistakes so people don’t follow me into some unnecessary holes.

Anyway, may thanks for your support - especially to the person who turned up!

Details of Update and Regulation half day can be found linked on the following page of the Amberhawk website: http://www.amberhawk.com/bookevents.asp 

Comments

[Karen]

Thanks for the update. MoJ tactics are intriguing. (Wish I could have been there - marking deadlines prevented it).

[Anon]

If the Commission did play ball with UK on this it might imply they are not going to press their complaints and proceed with the ECJ reference?