One of the issues that the Information Commissioner (ICO) (along with other voices) has been persistent about in recent years is the need for stiffer penalties for breaches of the Data Protection Act
One of the issues that the Information Commissioner (ICO) (along with other voices) has been persistent about in recent years is the need for stiffer penalties for breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998. It is understandably frustrating for the regulator that those individuals who flagrantly disregard data protection responsibilities (e.g. through offences such as blagging) typically only face a penalty of up to £5,000. There has been a campaign from various quarters to increase the maximum sentence that can be awarded for a breach of s. 55 of the DPA (the unlawful obtaining and use of personal data) and the previous Government provided for a tougher regime when they amended the DPA through the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to increase the penalty to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment. However, this provision has still to be brought into force. The campaign to increase the penalty gained greater impetus when Lord Justice Leveson, in his 2012 report, also recommended that the maximum sentence be increased. It was examined again recently by the UK Parliament's Justice Committee in their report on the role of the ICO.
Yesterday Lord McNally's response on behalf of the Government to the Justice Committee's report was published. In his short letter, Lord McNally commented on the ICO's status and funding, accountability to Parliament and powers to compel audits of the public sector. He also announced that the Government will be holding a public consultation on the full range of data protection proposals that Lord Justice Leveson recommended including, of course, the proposal to introduce custodial penalties for breaches of s. 55. In reality, this announcement is not a surprise given the Government's response to other related work in this area such as the Shakespeare Review of Public Sector Information in June this year.
The previous Government consulted twice on the proposal to introduce custodial penalties - in 2006 and 2009 - but in each case decided not to do so even though there was considerable support from the public for the change. Since then, the usual Government response to select committee's recommendations has been to hold the line and not take the plunge of introducing stricter penalties. So in 2011, the Government responded to the Justice Committee's report on referral fees and the theft of personal data by stating that it wasn't yet convinced that it was the right time to introduce custodial sentences for s. 55 offences (partly this was because the Government wanted to wait until the Leveson Inquiry (then in full swing) had reported). The Government has already been extensively criticised for not responding more fulsomely to the Leveson proposals. Now that the s. 55 proposal is being put to a third round of public consultation with the weight of the Leveson Report behind it, it will become more difficult for the Government to side-step this thorny issue again.
Yesterday Lord McNally's response on behalf of the Government to the Justice Committee's report was published. In his short letter, Lord McNally commented on the ICO's status and funding, accountability to Parliament and powers to compel audits of the public sector. He also announced that the Government will be holding a public consultation on the full range of data protection proposals that Lord Justice Leveson recommended including, of course, the proposal to introduce custodial penalties for breaches of s. 55. In reality, this announcement is not a surprise given the Government's response to other related work in this area such as the Shakespeare Review of Public Sector Information in June this year.
The previous Government consulted twice on the proposal to introduce custodial penalties - in 2006 and 2009 - but in each case decided not to do so even though there was considerable support from the public for the change. Since then, the usual Government response to select committee's recommendations has been to hold the line and not take the plunge of introducing stricter penalties. So in 2011, the Government responded to the Justice Committee's report on referral fees and the theft of personal data by stating that it wasn't yet convinced that it was the right time to introduce custodial sentences for s. 55 offences (partly this was because the Government wanted to wait until the Leveson Inquiry (then in full swing) had reported). The Government has already been extensively criticised for not responding more fulsomely to the Leveson proposals. Now that the s. 55 proposal is being put to a third round of public consultation with the weight of the Leveson Report behind it, it will become more difficult for the Government to side-step this thorny issue again.