BrochuresCartoon

Amberhawk
COURSES (BCS/ISEB)
follow link for detail

Data Protection Training

London: Foundation
4, 5 & 6 July

Leeds: Practitioner
Starts June 6

London: Practitioner
Starts July 11

FOI Training
London: Practitioner
Starts Oct 11

Information Security Management Training (CISMP)
London: Foundation
Starts Nov 27

Training/Update/Events
Update: Nov 20
GDPR: July 24
PIA: Sept 11
DP Audit: Sept 18

Amberhawk

« Is the Data Protection Regulation dead? If not, should it be? | Main | Is the Irish Commissioner correct to claim that he can’t investigate Apple and Microsoft over PRISM? »

23/07/2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I would definately have another go. After all it would be much harder to withold as the public interest would be stronger.

Sir, renew or reissue your request. They have declared that they must, at least, look at it with fresh eyes.

Disappointing Tribunal decision, but the ruling almost seems to invite a new request and under which it seems to indicate the Tribunal would favour disclosure. Indeed, a new request would be all the more powerful, because there has to be a substantially increased 'public interest' argument (i.e. particularly as it looks as if the proposed Regulation will dilute into a Directive) in understanding whether a Directive would be fully implemented in any replacement for DPA 1998.
Derek A Wynne

"If the request was made today we may have come to another conclusion but we are bound by the law to consider the public interest test as at the time of the request."

Unless you have a time machine, this strikes me as a (pineappling?) waste of public funds. Stupidity of 'precedent' that requires the time of the request to be taken into consideration rather the prevailing "conditions" at the time of response - which, as already pointed out, have changed. Given the considerable burden that the new Regulations are likely to impose on organisations (dedicated DPO, increased reporting, etc) I would re-issue the request. Thank you for your efforts/energy so far.

Reading between the lines as you teach so well, it does strike me as "we have been told by the MOJ et al to answer you thus - we don't like being told what to do, so if you were to put it in again we can have another go at them"
or maybe I'm just becoming cynical. Good Luck!

I would read that as an invitation, Chris, and indeed suggest you quote it in your request.

SH

From my experience the wording of the judgement is DEFINITELY an invitation to make the request again. There is a very deliberate teasing out of the balance of interests between then and now - and I think you should quote those particular statements in your new request!

SMC

Almost an invitation to make a fresh request...have you got the energy?

BJ

Clearly the tribunal is not one to labour a point, but to refer to "at the time of the request" a total of four times in three paragraphs suggests a slight niggle of hands being tied....

Chris - I wholeheartedly agree with the comments above - this is a clear flag waving to you by the Tribunal to "bring it on again!"
It would therefore be such a disappointment not to accept their kind invitation!You clearly have everone's support - if you have the time and energy, go for it!

The comments to this entry are closed.

All materials on this website are the copyright of Amberhawk Training Limited, except where otherwise stated. If you want to use the information on the blog, all we ask is that you do so in an attributable manner.