There have been concerns recently about the value the courts put on people's sensitive personal data. Readers may recall that in November 2008, the entire BNP membership list was published online. Approximately 12,000 names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses were disclosed. This information was clearly "sensitive personal data" under the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA"), as in the context it related to the political opinion of BNP members.
Due to its sensitive nature, political opinion is meant to be fastidiously protected by the DPA (and the data controller). As a result of BNP membership disclosure, some of those named were attacked, had their property vandalised, received white powder through the post (said to be anthrax) and one BNP member lost his job as a police officer (see here). The police received more than 160 complaints about the disclosure and its consequences. It comes as some surprise then that, following an investigation to have cost around £50,000, a former BNP security chief was fined £200 by the Nottingham Magistrates' Court. He was also ordered to pay costs of £100.
So, the disclosure of each individual's name attracted a fine of about one and two thirds of a penny. Mary Poppins couldn't feed the birds for that.
The judge is reported to have said that the fine had to be "so low as to be ridiculous" because the former BNP security chief was living off benefits, but that may not satisfy those who suffered harm to themselves and/or their property as a result of the illegal disclosure.
To put the level of the fine into context, in December 2006, the Liverpool Magistrates' Court fined Liverpool City Council £300 for failing to respond to an information notice issued by the Information Commissioner's Office. This Naked Lawyer is not convinced that the punishments in data protection cases always fit the crime. Perhaps when the Information Commissioner finally receives the power to fine those who breach one of the eight data protection principles, the unauthorised disclosure of another's political opinion will attract a rather stiffer fine. It is currently anticipated that the Information Commissioner will receive this power in April 2010.
