Changes to access to information regulations
From the Local Government department at Eversheds, this note provides a good summary briefing on the changes in the regulations that allows the ordinary citizen to access information and meetings by their local authority. With increased concerns about councils banning individuals from meetings, this new sets of regulations is vital reading for anyone concerned about the conduct of their council.
The Draft EU Regulation on Personal Data (Baker & McKenzie, Paris)
On October 8, 2012, the rapporteur of the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament, Mr. Jan Albrecht, published a first working document presenting certain orientations regarding the draft Regulation relating to personal data protection. In this document, he sets out some of the potential problems with the draft Regulation as it stands and aims to give some direction as to the scope of the Regulation’s terms. This is a very useful summary from Baker & McKenzie’s Paris office on the key points of the document, which also includes a brief note on the increased speed of the legislative process for the Regulation.
Companies raise concerns about the government’s draft Communication Data Bill (Eversheds)
This short article from Stephanie Nelson, an Eversheds associate, provides a short glimpse at some of the commercial responses to the Government’s controversial plans to give the police increased powers to intercept a wider range of information transmitted online. As the worries and complaints continue to grow, it will be interesting to see how the Government reacts.
Data Protection Law World Handbook 2012 (DLA Piper)
As the title suggests, this is a document pulled together by the lawyers at DLA Piper on the various Data Protection regimes around the world. Although not great in the fine detail (otherwise the handbook would be a lot larger than its 274 pages), it’s an extremely useful guide to those looking at comparative regimes and needing a way in.
Hacking Off Alan Partridge (Macfarlanes)
A note by Geoff Steward on the final part of the Mulcaire litigation.
The Fresh Prince – Is there more than just Privacy and Freedom of the Press at stake? (Eversheds)
A small article amongst many others on the subject of Prince Harry but with a focus on a Data Protection aspect of the matter.
No duty to lower academic standards for disabled student (Mills & Reeve)
One of the perennial discussions about entry to the Bar as a profession looks at the academic requirements for entering onto the BPTC. It currently sits at a Lower Second class degree, but there is discussion as to whether the BSB should raise this to ensure that people who stand a good chance of passing the course (and of getting pupillage) can do so, while those who do not should not waste their time and a lot of money working towards a profession they will never succeed at. The link above provides a brief summary of a recent case involving the Visitors of the Inns of Court investigating an appeal against the BSB’s decision not to use its discretion to lower the academic standards for the Bar course for a disabled student. Only a small summary, it highlights the point that a competence standard is a proportionate means of ensuring success on the course. Perhaps now there is an argument for raising the entry standard to the next level and doing away with the aptitude test.
The Queen on the application of T Nicklinson v MoJ
What can only be described as a very sad case, Tony Nicklinson has lost his case in the High Court in the latest ‘right to die’ judgment.
The issues in the hearing were as follows:
1. Is voluntary euthanasia a possible defence to murder?
2. Is the DPP under a legal duty to provide further clarification of his policy?
3. Alternatively, is section 2 of the Suicide Act incompatible with article 8 in obstructing Martin or Tony from exercising a right in their circumstances to receive assistance to commit suicide?
4. Are the GMC and the SRA under a legal duty to clarify their positions?
5. Is the mandatory life sentence for murder incompatible with the Convention in a case of genuine voluntary euthanasia?”
The judges were very sympathetic of his plight, and that of the other individual bringing a claim, AM, but in the end decided that they were unable to depart from the law as it stood and that it is for Parliament to decide on changing the law.
The press summary can be found here.