15 June 2018
The GDPR has introduced a new accountability principle: the data controller “shall be responsible for, and be able to demonstrate compliance, with” each of the six principles of the GDPR. For a principle summarised in 10 words, there is a significant amount of work required by organisations to ensure accountability. And there may be significant consequences if this work is not undertaken.
29 May 2018
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has begun consulting on a new Regulatory Action Policy (“the Policy”). This new policy is intended to provide “direction and focus” for those the ICO regulates, the public and its staff - and therefore demands careful consideration by anyone concerned about regulatory action within this new GDPR era. Critically, the Policy reiterates the ICO’s commitment to a balanced approach to regulation by creating an environment in which data subjects are protected whilst business is able to operate and innovate efficiently:
25 May 2018
Unless you’ve been under a rock for the past few months, you’ll be aware that changes are afoot in the data protection world. Your inbox is probably full of emails from organisations using various catchy phrases to get you to “opt in” to receiving communications (my favourite was headed “darling you’ve got to let me know, will you stay or will you go?” – who said data protection couldn’t be fun?!). But what is GDPR and what does all this mean for you as a therapist?
18 May 2018
In Adath Yisroel Burial Society v HM Senior Coroner for Inner North London [2018] EWHC 969 (Admin), the First Claimant was a charitable organisation responsible for managing and facilitating the burials of a large proportion of the orthodox Jewish population in Inner North London. The Second Claimant was a 79 year old orthodox Jewish woman who lives within the administrative area of the Senior Coroner for Inner North London (the Defendant). The Defendant was the Senior Coroner for Inner North London.
3 May 2018
The judicial review of the decision by the Parole Board to release John Worboys garnered significant media attention. One of the factors that increased its profile was the involvement of the Mayor of London, who was the first party to bring a claim. At the substantive hearing, the High Court took the relatively unusual step of denying him standing as a claimant. This article looks at some of the questions raised by the Court’s approach to standing in this instance, and at an alternative option available to individuals or organisations looking to have their voice heard in judicial review proceedings.