By Gabriel Princewill-
British Courts have been exposing their ignorance about Data protection laws, as the Ministry Of Justice(MOJ) watch them inadvertently display an embarrassing level of incompetence on the matter.
The MOJ was notified of the disappointing level of ignorance in some British courts in relation to judicial verdicts given in open court . Our research occurred over a 2 week period, and in some cases we physically attended courts to probe the level of carelessness at work in officials who did not know the rules. Rules which have been provided through written guidelines.
Highly placed officials in a number of British courts attempted to withhold the outcome of cases held in open court when approached by journalists from our publication.
The discovery of the shameful lapse in basic knowledge led to an impromptu research of the knowledge of staff in various Uk courts, as we staged fictitious inquiries to discover which courts and court staff will fall into our trap. And a number blissfully exhibited gaps in their knowledge about basic procedures in relation to data access they ought to be familiar with.
Both the fines department and main headquarters of a number of courts showed were abysmally in the dark about what is expected of them when asked about eventual sentences passed in open court.
SOUTHEND MAGISTRATES REQUESTS
The requests for the outcomes of fictitious cases arose after both Southend and Chelmsford Magistrates Courts erroneously insisted Data protection laws prevented them from disclosing the outcomes of cases held in open court. An intervention I made after learning about the resistance from both Southend and Chelmsford Magistrates Court yielded no immediate solution.
Dianne Bedoes from Southend Magistrates Court actually sent an email re-iterating her claim that they were not allowed to disclose information relating to sentences passed in court.
A few minutes later, an official from the Ministry of Justice confirmed told me on the phone that her colleague was putting Ms Bedoes straight on the other line. Notwithstanding, staff from other courts continued to err on this point, citing the Data Protection Act.
TRAINED
It is shocking that trained court officials did not understand the basic distinction between information in the public domain, and private data not legally accessible by third parties. Some of our researchers even reported observing an inflated esteem by officials who were oblivious of how the law works with data protection.
FOLLY
Staff from many of the courts inadvertently made fools of themselves by referring us to the Ministry Of Justice press office, despite assurances from the MOJ to the contrary that requested information about court cases be given to journalists. Other writers researching the matter said some court officials were calling the Ministry Of Justice to confirm our position after they were told how they ought to be operating.
The folly of these staff officials in trying to distinguish between journalists present and absent in an open court case questions their suitability for the job
BIRMINGHAM MAGISTRATES COURT
When we called Birmingham Magistrates Court and asked whether they would tell us the outcome of a case, they refereed us to the Ministry Of Justice press office, just like Southend Magistrates Court had done. Rima, Mo and Alex, all said it was against Data protection. At least the court staff are all smart enough not to give their last names to avoid full identification, but the Ministry of Justice were kept updated with our findings.
GUIDELINES
The MoJ had told us that the courts have been sent guidelines to provide information that has been in the public domain to the media. Clearly, none of the court staff had read the guidelines or they did not understand what should be basic knowledge in those professional realms.
CITY MAGISTRATES COURT
At City Magistrates Court in Bank, central London, Chantelle confidently told us that government guidelines prohibited them from divulging outcomes of court cases; insisting for requests had to be made in writing. This was despite reminding her that these cases were heard in open court.
LIVERPOOL MAGISTRATES COURT
At Liverpool Magistrates Court, Joana Fullerton did well in correctly explaining that cases in the public domain could be given to the press. ”Cases heard in open court can be revealed to journalists” she correctly stated . At Norwich Magistrates Court, we were back to a display of disappointing ignorance, as Hellen Chatten insisted for any requests inquiring about court outcomes be sent to the Ministry Of Justice(MOJ) press office.
LEEDS MAGISTRATES COURT
At Leeds Magistrates Court, Julie was impressive in the way she clearly stated in her Yorkshire accent: ”any case that has been in open court is in the public domain so we can give it to journalists . She asked for the name of the defendant before we told her our request was merely a test for research purposes.
LONDON CENTRAL BASE
At the London central base, Vicki did well by stating from the start that any information in the pubic domain can be given to journalists.
SHEFFILED MAGISTRATES COURT
At Sheffield Magistrates Court, Paul wrongly cited Data protection, embarrassing himself in the process whilst insisting the information cant be given out. After we told him that cases in open court should be accessible to journalists, he put us on hold for about 2 minutes, only to come back and state the further false advice given to him.
SHEFFIELD CROWN COURT
However, Kay at Sheffield’s Crown Court justified her reason for expressing readiness to provide the requested information . She said ”it is a matter of public record what sentences are passed in the courts, so it is perfectly fine to disclose that information. Data protection only comes into the equation with private information not already in the public domain.
Courts are supposed to be well trained for the press, but a number of courts gave themselves away during today’s experiment of knowledge of data protection laws.
A spokesperson for the MOJ said: ‘
‘The courts are regularly sent guidance in relation to information already in the public domain can be given to the press, it is not clear why they are not aware of that guidance. All courts have guidance to provide information to journalists about cases heard in open court. They should not be referring journalists to our press office. It is not clear why they don’t already understand this.”
They have now been reminded that data protection does not apply to information in the public domain.” We will keep our eye on the progress of the courts.