Catherine Moore v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 917 (GRC)
Veronica Strain, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
7 March 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 240
Court of Appeal
Veronica complained about a police report about her. The court said she could use a different legal process to fix the problem instead of a judicial review, and that the report was accurate anyway, so her appeal was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Ms. Veronica Strain appealed the refusal of permission to judicially review a decision by the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police not to delete an Intelligence Report about her.
- •The report stemmed from a police visit following a threat of self-harm.
- •The report contained information about Strain's past complaints against Nottinghamshire Police and allegations of domestic violence involving Strain.
- •Strain disputed the accuracy and fairness of the report.
- •The report was amended following a pre-action letter and acknowledgement of service.
- •The appeal focused on whether the amended report breached data protection legislation and if an alternative remedy existed.
Legal Principles
Permission for judicial review should generally be refused if an adequate alternative remedy is available.
Common law and case law
Statutory procedures for enforcing rights should be used instead of judicial review when available.
Common law and case law
Section 167 of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides court remedies for data protection infringements, including compliance orders and compensation.
Data Protection Act 2018, section 167
Judicial review is primarily concerned with questions of law, not factual disputes.
Common law and CPR Part 54
A public body is entitled to rely on information from other police forces.
O’Hara v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1997] AC 286 at 301H
Data Protection Act 2018 requirements for data processing: fairness, adequacy, relevance, accuracy, and up-to-dateness.
Data Protection Act 2018 (implied)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
An adequate alternative remedy existed under section 167 of the Data Protection Act 2018. The Judge correctly found the amended Intelligence Report to be accurate and compliant with data protection principles. There was no arguable public law error.