Read the Blog
The future of crypto regulation in the UK
James Alleyne
The recent case of Geoffrey Driver V Crown Prosecution Service [2022] EWCH 2500 (KB) serves as an interesting illustration of the potential pitfalls for the CPS of disclosing information about cases that are still at the pre-charge, investigative stage.
The brief facts are that Mr Driver was a leading figure in Lancashire County Council who had been under investigation by the police for various matters for many years. In August 2018 the police sent their file of evidence to the CPS for a decision as to whether any criminal charges should be brought. Then, in May 2019, a member of the public named Mr Graham who, in the words of Knowles J at paragraph 35 of the judgment, “appeared to have an axe to grind” against Mr Driver, e-mailed the CPS to make an enquiry regarding the status of Mr Driver’s case. The CPS reviewing lawyer responded to the enquiry with the information that a charging file had been submitted by the police and it was under consideration. Some six months later, in December 2019 in the run-up to the 2019 general election, Mr Graham circulated the CPS e-mail to a number of people, including some of Mr Driver’s political opponents and two journalists (one of whom was the BBC’s Jeremy Vine).
Mr Driver sued the CPS for sending the e-mail to Mr Graham, claiming damages for misuse of private information, breach of his right to a private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and various breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018.
The misuse of private information and Article 8 claims were rejected by the judge, largely on the basis that the e-mail did not contain any information in respect of which Mr Driver had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The judge found that Mr Driver could not have had any reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information in the e-mail because the investigation had been ongoing for some years, the case had been widely reported in the media and Mr Driver had at one point issued a press-release identifying himself as a suspect. In short, the fact that he was under investigation was already very much in the public domain.
The judge, however, did find that the CPS had breached the Data Protection Act 2018 by sending an e-mail containing Mr Driver’s personal data. He found that the CPS had not demonstrated that it was necessary for Mr Graham to have been updated about Mr Driver’s case and that he had no legitimate interest in being individually updated about the progress of the decision-making in Mr Driver’s case. He found at paragraph 117 of the judgment that Mr Graham was “no more than a ‘meddlesome busybody’ who appears to have been motivated at least in part by some past and related grievance against” Mr Driver.
Having found for Mr Driver on this issue, the judge then went on to consider the issue of compensation. He found that Mr Driver would have experienced a very modest degree of distress upon discovering that the CPS’s e-mail had been sent to political opponents and the media by someone who had a grievance against him in an effort to embarrass him, and awarded damages in the sum of £ 250.
The outcome in each case will depend upon the facts, but this case is a useful illustration of the types of remedies that are available to individuals who have a legitimate complaint about the way the CPS, or any other public body, have handled their personal data, especially at the pre-charge stage. The judge was particularly unimpressed (at paragraph 122) by the CPS’s apparent lack of any policy dealing with how it should react “if random members of the public [make] enquiries about ongoing investigations”.
Whilst in this case the actual damage caused to Mr Driver was minimal because the information was in the public domain already, that fact could not be relied upon by the CPS as a defence to the Data Protection Act 2018 claim. However, were it not for the fact that the information was in the public domain already, the damages award could have been much higher and awards could have been made for misuse of private information and breach of Article 8. The CPS appear to have dodged a bullet on this occasion but it is a salutary warning to them to treat suspects’ confidential information with the respect it deserves at the pre-charge stage.
FURTHER INFORMATION
If you are concerned about the way your personal data has been handled by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, please contact Edward Jones, Emily Carter or Helen Morris.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Edward Jones has practised exclusively in the field of criminal law for over 15 years and brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to his role. He has acted for clients accused of the most serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and rape and always approaches all his cases in a calm, methodical and meticulous manner in order to achieve the best possible outcome for his clients.
We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.
You may also be interested in:
Read the Blog
The FCA's Consumer Duty - a new approach to regulation
James Alleyne
Read the Blog
The Economic Crime and Transparency Bill: a mixed bag
Ed Smyth
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print