Editorial
This issue of Information Technology Law Reports contains three High Court decisions. The first, R (On the Application of (1) David Davies MP (2) Tom Watson MP (3) Peter Brice (4) Geoffrey Lewis) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and (1) Open Rights Group (2) Privacy International (3) Law Society of England and Wales (Interveners) ruled that surveillance legislation, rushed through Parliament by ministers, was unlawful. In particular, sections 1 and 2 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 was incompatible with the public’s right to respect for private life and communications and to protection of personal data under Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This case serves as a reminder of the perils of rushing through legislation. The second, R (On the Application of C) v Northumberland County Council and Information Commissioner, concerned the retention of child protection records. The court found that a retention policy of 35 years from case closure was both lawful within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 and a proportionate and justified breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It was, perhaps, unfortunate that the court was only required to consider whether Northumberland County Council’s retention policy was justified and not to provide more general guidance as to best practice. In the third decision, Camille Saskia Richardson v Facebook; Camille Saskia Richardson v Google (UK) Ltd, it was held that the claimant had failed to prove that both defendants were responsible for the publications. Correctly pinpointing responsibility for publication is, therefore, vital.

Richard Budworth
Editor, Information Technology Law Reports

R (on the application of (1) David Davis MP (2) Tom Watson MP (3) Peter Brice (4) Geoffrey Lewis) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and (1) Open Rights Group (2) Privacy International (3) Law Society of England and Wales (Interveners)
High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (DC)
Bean LJ and Collins J
17 July 2015
[2015] EWHC 2092 (Admin)

Telecommunications - retention of communications data in the UK - privacy - personal data - consistency of UK legislation with EU law - judicial review - statutory data retention powers - Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, sections 1, 2, 6, 8(3), 22(2)(a), and 22(2) (c) - Directive 2006/24 2006, Articles 1(1), 3, 4, 5(1), 5(2), 6, 7 and 8 - Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009, regulations 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000, Articles 51 and 52 - application granted.

R (on the application of C) v Northumberland County Council and Information Commissioner
High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division
Simon J 23 July 2015 [2015] EWHC 2134 (Admin)
Family Law - judicial review - child protection records - local authorities' duties - private life - data protection - data retention - Data Protection Act 1998 sections 2, 4 and 7 - European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Article 8 - application refused.

Camille Saskia Richardson v Facebook Camille Saskia Richardson v Google (UK) Ltd
High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division
Warby J
2 November 2015
 [2015] EWHC 3154

Defamation - libel on websites - Facebook profile and blog - right to private life under Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights 1950 - permission to appeal - referral to European Court of Justice - applications refused.