Armed with your data protection knowledge and skill, please identify what might be wrong with the following commentary found in a judgement issued this year. You can take as long as you like.
"It is important to bear in mind the definition of “data” contained in s.1(1) of the Act. The email in question was neither “recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system” nor does it “form part of an accessible record”.
Reference: Peter Hughes (Claimant) and William Risbridger (sued as “Bill Risbridger”), Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 491 (QB).
Advert: This is one of the legal cases covered in our Update sessions in Manchester (Monday, April 26th) and Edinburgh (Monday, May 10th). Details on the events page of www.amberhawk.com
Well, it ignores the (rather important) other definitions of data in the precedings subsections. The email in question would - surely - have fallen under s(1)(1)(a) and/or (b).
The "accessible record" provision is arguably a red herring as well - as this only applies to health/education/ public authority records.
Has Eady J fallen into the trap of assuming all five sub-sections must appply for the definition to bite?
Posted by: J Baines | 16/04/2010 at 03:33 PM
Is it failure to consider the other elements of the definition? An email is information which is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose.
Posted by: Aclatterofthelaw | 16/04/2010 at 05:06 PM
The fact that it is an email automatically means that it was part of a relevant filing system i.e. the email system itself. As for being part of an accessible record, the email IS the accessible record.
Posted by: Secretgeek | 20/04/2010 at 10:25 AM