In this week’s Digest, the High Court gave reasons for previously granting the continuation of an injunction preventing the disclosure of confidential information relating to the treatment of children at a school in South Croydon (Dodsworth)
London Borough of Croydon v Dodsworth [2017] EWHC 2257 (QB)
Judgment (available here) handed down by Lavender J in the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) on 8 September 2017
The London Borough of Croydon’s schools include Red Gates School, in South Croydon, at which Mia Dodsworth, the first defendant, was headmistress from September 2016 until April 2017. On resigning, Ms Dodsworth was placed on “garden leave”. She, along with Devika Pauline Lambert, the second defendant – an educational advocate, providing consultancy services – had concerns about treatment of children at the School. Ms Lambert, in particular, was not satisfied with the London Borough of Croydon’s responses to such worries. In the summer of 2017, while still on garden leave, Ms Dodsworth accessed her work email account, forwarded various emails to her personal email address, and then forwarded them to Ms Lambert. These emails included documents containing confidential information about children and staff at the School. Ms Lambert duly spoke to the police about her concerns, sent information to Ofsted, and vowed to issue a press release. The London Borough of Croydon made an urgent application for an injunction, without notice, which was granted. The defendants were prohibited from using, publishing, communicating, or disclosing material described therein as “the Confidential Information”.
In September 2017, the High Court granted the continuation of the injunction. It heard that hearing in private, but now gives its reasons in public. Ms Lambert had drawn the Court’s attention to the Freedom of Information Act 2000; section 175 of the Education Act 2002; sections 43C and 43G of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998; Articles 5 and 7 of the ECHR; and Articles 2, 3, 6, 12, 19, and 28 of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child. Reliance was placed, also, on a letter from Newspaper Media Group, proprietor of the Croydon Guardian, referring to section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the public interest in the question of whether the School was being properly run. The Court, however, was satisfied that publication should not be allowed. First, the Confidential Information had the necessary quality of confidence – it included, for instance, photographs of children. Second, it was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, on Ms Dodsworth’s part, to her employer. Third, unauthorised use or disclosure was threatened – and, while Ms Lambert had obtained signed consent forms from some parents, these did not extend to making the information about their children public. As with any school, the High Court held, there is a public interest in seeing that it is properly run, and that the local authority is properly carrying out its responsibilities. It would not be in the public interest, though, for the Confidential Information to be published by these defendants. If, however, those who are entitled to do so – i.e. parents of children at the School – were to disclose information, either to the authorities or more widely, that was a matter for them, the Court concluded.
Other News
CJEU dismisses complaints over EU asylum seeker quotas (6 September 2017)
The CJEU has dismissed complaints by Slovakia and Hungary about the European Union’s migration policy and its mandatory relocation scheme, which aims to relocate 120,000 asylum seekers from Greece and Italy to other Member States. After Slovakia and Hungary – together with Romania and the Czech Republic – voted against the scheme in 2015, at the height of the migration crisis, European leaders turned to Article 78(3) TFEU, which provides for the adoption of provisional measures in response to an emergency situation, to force it through. CJEU judges held that the European Council had acted lawfully, vindicating the EU decision-making process that devised the relocation scheme. Budapest, though, described the ruling as “appalling and irresponsible”. Péter Szijjártó, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, added: “This decision jeopardizes the security and future of all of Europe”.
EU judges should rule on UK surveillance powers, IPT rules (8 September 2017)
EU judges should rule on the legality of the UK’s mass digital surveillance powers, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has held. The IPT ruled on Friday that the Court of Justice of the European Union should decide whether this country’s bulk collection of communications data is legal. The ruling recognised that such collection was “essential to the protection of the national security of the United Kingdom.” However, the IPT further held that “it was clear that both parties either agreed to or saw the necessity for a reference to the [CJEU’s] Grand Chamber, and the need for it is, we suggest, obvious from this judgment”. The case was brought by the campaign group, Privacy International, which is arguing that bulk collection of communications data is no less sensitive than the content of emails, and that the constitutional right to personal privacy sets certain limits on State surveillance powers.
MP’s review reveals justice system’s bias against ethnic minorities (8 September 2017)
A new review, led by David Lammy MP, has concluded that the justice system in England and Wales is biased, and discriminates in its treatment of people from ethnic minority backgrounds. People from black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds account for 25 per cent of the prison population and 41 per cent of the youth justice system, according to the review – despite such groups making up only 14 per cent of the general population. Mr Lammy MP has thus made 35 recommendations to tackle such bias, including delaying or dropping some prosecutions, increased gathering of data on the ethnicity and religion of offenders, and the introduction of targets for a more representative workforce in the justice system. The Government has said that it will “look carefully” at the suggestions. Meanwhile, Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has said that Mr Lammy MP’s call for a scheme to defer some prosecutions should indeed be considered.
