Key Facts
- •Lee McLoughlin pleaded guilty in 2016 to possessing indecent images of children.
- •A police witness statement contained allegedly inaccurate personal data regarding McLoughlin's Facebook use.
- •McLoughlin brought a claim under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018).
- •The lower court dismissed the application to strike out the claim.
- •The Chief Constable of Kent Police appealed.
- •McLoughlin attempted to discontinue part of his claim during the appeal.
- •The disputed statement linked McLoughlin's Facebook activity to times when he downloaded indecent images.
Legal Principles
Abuse of process – re-litigation of issues already determined in criminal proceedings or judicial review.
Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co [2002] AC 1; Mueen-Uddin v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1703; Hunter v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529; Allsop v. Banner Jones Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 7
Abuse of process – ‘the game is not worth the candle’ (de minimis doctrine).
Jameel v. Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75; Higinbotham v Teekhungam [2018] EWHC 1880 (QB)
Accuracy of personal data under DPA 2018 – whether data is ‘incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact’.
DPA 2018, section 205(1)
Witness immunity and its application to data protection claims.
Darker v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] 1 AC 435
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The claim was an abuse of process as it constituted a re-litigation of issues already considered in the criminal proceedings and subsequent judicial review. The court rejected the argument that the claim was justified based on the alleged inaccuracy of a specific part of the police statement.