The Guardian alleged today that Rupert Murdoch's News Group
newspapers paid out more than £1 million to settle legal cases that
threatened to expose evidence of journalists using private
investigators to hack into the private mobile phone messages of
numerous public figures.
"The suppressed legal cases are linked to the jailing in January
2007 of News of the World reporter Clive Goodman for hacking into
the mobile phones of three royal staff," reports The Guardian. At
that time, News Group newspapers' parent, News International,
claimed that it knew of no other journalist involved in hacking
phones, according to The Guardian.
The Guardian cites two unnamed sources in the Met, one of whom
claims that officers found evidence of "two or three thousand"
mobile phones having been hacked. The Guardian says that the Met
failed to notify the owners of those phones and says that the
evidence calls that failure into question.
Rosemary Jay, a data protection expert at Pinsent Masons, the
law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that if police knew the details
of numerous hacked phones, they would have had a duty to notify the
phones' owners.
The hacking of phones is a crime under the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000. According to Jay, police would have
a duty under the Data Protection Act to notify the victims.
"If a crime has been committed in the way that is suggested and
police knew the people affected, I think police would have a duty
themselves under the Data Protection Act to notify the victims,"
she said. "That would have given them an opportunity at least to
change their mobile phone numbers."
The Data Protection Act says that personal data must be
processed fairly and lawfully. It also says that when personal data
is obtained from someone other than the subject, the controller of
that data must ensure that the subject is given some basic
information about the circumstances of the data being obtained.
"This would not apply if telling individuals would entail a
disproportionate effort, or in cases where the disclosure would
prejudice the prevention or detection of crime," said Jay. "But I
struggle to see how the police could rely on either of these
justifications. Calling these people is neither laborious nor
likely to hamper any investigation."
The Guardian also alleges unauthorised access to confidential
databases, such as telephone accounts, bank records and the DVLA's
vehicle database. That is an offence under section 55 of the Data
Protection Act, but not one that can be punished by a custodial
sentence.
In 2006, Information Commissioner Richard Thomas called for that
to change, arguing that the 'blagging' of personal data had to be
deterred. He said that the illegal buying and selling of personal
information should carry a maximum penalty of two years'
imprisonment.
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008 provides for
that custodial sentence, but the provision has never been brought
into force.
"I expect that the new Commissioner, Christopher Graham, will
call for that change on the back of today's allegations," said
Jay.
"There is a defence to section 55 and the new amendment where
the circumstances of the blagging can be justified as being in the
public interest – but that will not justify fishing expeditions,"
she said. "Amid today's allegations that blagging was systematic,
affecting thousands of individuals, there are unlikely to be more
than a handful of cases that can be justified as being in the
public interest."
A spokesman for the Information Commissioner's Office told
OUT-LAW today: "Any changes to the law are of course a matter for
the Ministry of Justice but the ICO continues to believe that
custodial sentences are needed as an effective deterrent to those
who might be tempted to take part in the unlawful trade in personal
information."
"We will be watching the blagging market closely, will prosecute
any case supported by evidence and will highlight future breaches
of section 55 of the Data Protection Act to Ministers and to
Parliament," the spokesman said.
Under RIPA, both the hacker of a mobile phone and those who
commissioned the hacking would face the risk of prosecution. There
is no public interest defence in that law.
The Met police declined to comment on the accuracy of the
Guardian's allegations.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
