D Hooper v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 392 (GRC)
Robin Simon Graham Makin (formerly known as X) v The Transcription Agency LLP & Anor
9 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1092 (KB)
High Court
Someone sued two people because they wouldn't give him their data. A judge said the law lets judges keep their data private to do their jobs, and that the people who didn't give him the data were just following the rules. The judge also said she could look at private documents without him there to keep things fair.
Key Facts
- •Claimant challenges defendants' refusal to provide personal data under DPA 2018 and UK GDPR.
- •First defendant: transcription service provider under a Framework Agreement with the Lord Chancellor.
- •Second defendant: High Court Master and Costs Judge.
- •Defendants relied on the judicial exemption (para 14 of Schedule 2 to DPA 2018).
- •Claimant's SAR originated from prior High Court litigation.
- •Claimant lodged a complaint of judicial misconduct against the second defendant.
- •The judicial exemption had not been previously addressed by High Court or appellate authority.
Legal Principles
Right to access personal data under UK GDPR and DPA 2018.
UK GDPR Article 15, DPA 2018 section 3(2)
Judicial exemption under DPA 2018 Schedule 2, para 14.
DPA 2018 Schedule 2, para 14
Right to an effective judicial remedy under UK GDPR and DPA 2018.
UK GDPR Article 79, DPA 2018 section 167
Burden of proof lies on the data controller to prove exemptions apply.
Roberts v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2008] EWHC 1934 (QB)
Interpretation of 'judicial capacity' in the judicial exemption.
X v Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens [2022] 3 C.M.L.R. 26, 1069
Judicial independence and immunity from suit.
Anderson v Gorrie [1895] 1 Q.B. 668, Hinds v Liverpool County Court [2008] EWHC 665 (QB)
Data Protection: The Responsibilities of the Judiciary
Judicial Guidance (Version 1/2019)
Outcomes
Claims against both defendants dismissed.
The court found that the judicial exemption applied to all the data, as the second defendant processed the data in a judicial capacity, and the first defendant's processing was an adjunct to this.
Judicial exemption applies.
The court broadly interpreted 'judicial capacity' to encompass all judicial functions, including the processing of data related to transcript production and judicial misconduct complaints.
Court has power to consider exempt data in closed session.
This power is implied from Article 79 of the UK GDPR and section 167 of the DPA 2018, necessary to ensure effective judicial remedy.
Second defendant's reply to SAR was timely.
The SAR was addressed to the second defendant personally and the response was sent within one month of her receipt.
First defendant primarily a data processor.
The Framework Agreement indicated that the first defendant primarily processed data on behalf of the second defendant.
Similar Cases
Chowdhury v Secretary of State for the Home Office & Ors
[2024] EWHC 844 (KB)
Richard and Jane Burton v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 624 (GRC)
Tianli Cui v Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 1047 (GRC)
Veronica Strain, R (on the application of) v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
[2023] EWCA Civ 240