Prosecution issues

maggie rankin made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Roedd y cais yn llwyddiannus.

Dear Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland,

Under the Freedom of Information Act could you please supply the following.

(1) Since 2007 how many successful prosecutions of the Data Protection Act have there been?

(2) How many have been PSNI employees?

(3) In making decisions do you consult with the ICO?

(4) In cases where there is no criminal intent are they treated differently than those with criminal intent?

Yours faithfully,

maggie rankin

Currie, Ruth, Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland

Good afternoon Ms Rankin. I acknowledge receipt of your FOI request.

Regards,

R Currie
PPS
Belfast Chambers
93 Chichester Street
Belfast

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Grant, Peter, Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland

Ms Rankin, in relation to your request for information in relation to
prosecutions under the Data Protection Act I can inform you as follows.
This request has been treated under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000:-

(1) Since 2007 how many successful prosecutions of the Data protection Act
have there been?

- During 2007 2 persons were convicted in the Magistrates' Courts and 2
persons in the Crown Courts for offences under the Data Protection Act.

- During 2008 the equivalent figures were 4 and 3 respectively.

- No persons have been convicted during 2009 (note: records are available
to 27/11/09 only).

(2) How many have been PSNI employees?

We are unable to identify employees of the PSNI from our database / Case
Management System. In terms of Section 17 of the Act this Information is
not held by the PPS.

(3) In making decisions do you consult with the ICO?

The PPS does not consult with the ICO in relation to these matters.

(4) In cases where there is no criminal intent are they treated
differently than those with criminal intent?

There are some offences which are referred to as "strictly liability"
offences. For these offences it is not necessary for the offender to have
what you refer to as 'Criminal Intent'.

Other offences can be committed by the offender if the offender knowingly
or recklessly committed the offence. Other offences require a specific
intent to commit the offence.

In considering whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the PPS
must have regard to the wording of the legislation creating the offence.
For example the offence under section 55 of the Data Protection Act is
that

"A person must not knowingly or recklessly without the consent of the data
controller obtain or disclose personal data or the information contained
in personal data."

In order for the test for prosecution to be met for this offence there
must be evidence that the person acted knowingly or recklessly. If, for
example, the evidence is that the person acted without knowing what the
information was and the circumstances were not such as to indicate to him
or her that further enquiry was required the mental element required for
the offence might not be capable of being established and hence there
could be no prosecution.

It is possible that a person could act recklessly but not intentionally.
In these circumstances there might be sufficient evidence to prosecute but
the absence of a clear intention is likely to be a relevant consideration
for the court in determining sentence.

I hope this information is useful to you.

Peter Grant
Departmental Records & Information Manager
Public Prosecution Service
.

Dear Grant, Peter,

Further to your reply to my FOI request, I require the following information:

1/ What was the nature of the DPA offences of the 4 cases convicted in the Magistrates court in 2008? Did the cases involve obtaining and disclosure?

2/ Have there been any cases convicted for viewing only from 2007 to present

3/ How many cases were convicted for ‘obtaining’ only (without a disclosure element) from 2007 to present.

4/ What factors determine whether or not a case is prosecuted in the Crown Court?

5/ What is the PPS’s ‘policy’ on the prosecution of Data Protection cases, (effective from 2007 to present)? At what level within the PPS are decisions to prosecute dpa cases taken?

Yours sincerely,

maggie rankin

Currie, Ruth, Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland

1 Atodiad

Ms Rankin please see attached response to your recent FOI request.

Regards,

Ruth Currie
PPS
Private Office
Room 401
Belfast Chambers
93 Chichester Street
Belfast

.

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

THE HMG COVER-UP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NtCYswQk... On the 8th of August 1991 I was kidnapped by two convicted IRA terrorists, Jim McCarthy (CRJ); https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jim-McCar... and Paul 'Chico' Hamilton; https://www.facebook.com/pages/Paul-Chic... and held at gun-point, I escaped by jumping from the flat window. However, for the past 20 years the PSNI (and RUC), PPS, MI5 and other organs of HMG have been protecting both men. The PPS and the PSNI continue to this day to cover-up my kidnapping, as above request shows. Here is more info on same: https://www.facebook.com/pages/PSNI-PPS-...
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Corruptio...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48716043/ALSO-...

Long runs the Fox.

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

http://www.causes.com/causes/548596

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fifty-Dead-Men-W...

https://www.facebook.com/BritishAgents