If you are seeking an answer to the above question why not just ask our MPs. At the heart of the long running MP expenses saga is the fact that a data controller (the House of Commons) or its data processor did not supervise its staff. Someone from within the data processor or data controller was able to make a copy of all the unredacted expenses and sell them to the Daily Telegraph. If all the rumours one sees in the press are true, the powers that be still don’t have a clue as to the identity of who made that fateful copy – so there is no audit trail of access.
The interesting side question for data protection aficionados is whether a section 55 offence has been committed? As the defence includes the argument that in the particular circumstances of the case “the obtaining, disclosing or procuring was justified as being in the public interest”, then it does appear that the person who gave the disks to the Telegraph could make this defence.
However, I think that this public interest argument is much diminished if a large fee was paid by the Daily Telegraph to that individual. If I were that individual, I would not want my defence to the S.55 offence to depend on an argument on the lines of: “I acted in the public interest at all times, and the £300K I received in payment was purely an incidental consideration”.
On the other hand, the Daily Telegraph appears to be in a different position. Section 78 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 provides for a defence to the Section 55 offence for purposes of journalism and other Special Purposes. The section states that the offence does not apply to the Special Purposes, where the personal data has been obtained “with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material, and in the reasonable belief that in the particular circumstances the obtaining, disclosing or procuring was justified as being in the public interest”.
In other words, it does not matter how the newspaper obtained the expenses disks. I therefore conclude that the Daily Telegraph is on safe grounds in relation to the S.55 offence but not the member of staff who gave them the disks for money. If there was money exchanged, that staff member would be unwise to “flash the cash” and draw attention to himself!
Comments