{"id":219,"date":"2006-04-11T15:12:41","date_gmt":"2006-04-11T15:12:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tuppenceworth.ie\/blog\/?p=219"},"modified":"2006-04-11T16:38:32","modified_gmt":"2006-04-11T15:38:32","slug":"data-protection-commissioners-annual-report-2005-garda-matters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tuppenceworth.ie\/blog\/2006\/04\/11\/data-protection-commissioners-annual-report-2005-garda-matters\/","title":{"rendered":"Data Protection Commissioner&#8217;s Annual Report 2005: Garda Matters"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>What an innoculous looking headline. I can assure you that it was wrangled over by the author for quite some time. <\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong>Garda matters <\/strong><br \/>\nDuring the year, the issue of subject access to<br \/>\npersonal data held by An Garda S\u00edoch\u00e1na arose. The<br \/>\nOffice\u2019s clear position, which has been communicated<br \/>\nto the Garda authorities on many occasions in recent<br \/>\nyears, is that the Garda\u00ed can claim the application of<br \/>\nsection 5(1)(a) of the Acts to relevant data, even in<br \/>\ncircumstances where an investigation has been<br \/>\nfinalised. However, in so claiming they must have<br \/>\nregard to the prejudice test in respect of each item of<br \/>\ndata. <\/p>\n<p>Section 5(1) of the Acts provides as follows:<br \/>\n\u201cSection 4 of this Act does not apply to personal data:<br \/>\n(a) kept for the purpose of preventing, detecting or<br \/>\ninvestigating offences, apprehending or prosecuting<br \/>\noffenders or assessing or collecting any tax, duty or<br \/>\nother moneys owed or payable to the State, a local<br \/>\nauthority or a health board, in any casein which the<br \/>\napplication of that section to the data would be likely<br \/>\nto prejudiceany of the matters aforesaid, &#8230;.??? <\/p>\n<p>It is clear that this exemption is only available where<br \/>\ncompliance with section 4 would be likely to prejudice<br \/>\nthe preventing, detecting or investigating of offences,<br \/>\nor apprehending or prosecuting offenders. It is not a<br \/>\ngeneral exemption and every time it is claimed in<br \/>\nrespect of particular data, it has to be on a case by<br \/>\ncase basis. This involves the data controller, in this<br \/>\ncase An Garda S\u00edoch\u00e1na, exercising its judgement<br \/>\nbased on the particular circumstances of the case. <\/p>\n<p>My view is that \u2018likely to prejudice\u2019 requires a significant<br \/>\nlikelihood rather than a mere risk that the purposes<br \/>\nset out in section 5(1) would be noticeably prejudiced<br \/>\nif the individual were to have access to the personal<br \/>\ndata held about him\/her. This implies that the Garda\u00ed<br \/>\ncannot withhold access to all information held about<br \/>\nan individual, only that information which relates to<br \/>\nthe objectives set out in section 5(1). <\/p>\n<p>The difficulties that have been experienced<br \/>\nin this area should be greatly reduced when the Garda<br \/>\nData Protection Code is finalised, probably later this<br \/>\nyear. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Yes, later this year. Or maybe later next year. Or at some other, unspecified, date in the future.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"What an innoculous looking headline. I can assure you that it was wrangled over by the author for quite some time. Garda matters During the year, the issue of subject access to personal data held by An Garda S\u00edoch\u00e1na arose. The Office\u2019s clear position, which has been communicated to the Garda authorities on many occasions in recent years, is that the Garda\u00ed can claim the application of section 5(1)(a) of the Acts to relevant data, even in circumstances where an investigation has been finalised. However, in so claiming they must have regard to the prejudice test in respect of each item of data. Section 5(1) of the Acts provides as follows: \u201cSection 4 of this Act does not apply to personal data: (a) kept for the purpose of preventing, detecting or investigating offences, apprehending or prosecuting offenders or assessing or collecting any tax, duty or other moneys owed or payable to the State, a local authority or a health board, in any casein which the application of that section to the data would be likely to prejudiceany of the matters aforesaid, &#8230;.??? It is clear that this exemption is only available where compliance with section 4 would be likely to prejudice the preventing, detecting or investigating of offences, or apprehending or prosecuting offenders. It is not a general exemption and every time it is claimed in respect of particular data, it has to be on a case by case basis. This involves the data controller, in this case An Garda S\u00edoch\u00e1na, exercising its judgement based on the particular circumstances of the case. My view is that \u2018likely to prejudice\u2019 requires a significant likelihood rather than a mere risk that the purposes set out in section 5(1) would be noticeably prejudiced if the individual were to have access to the personal data held about him\/her. This implies that the Garda\u00ed cannot withhold access to all information held about an individual, only that information which relates to the objectives set out in section 5(1). The difficulties that have been experienced in this area should be greatly reduced when the Garda Data Protection Code is finalised, probably later this year. Yes, later this year. Or maybe later next year. Or at some other, unspecified, date in the future.","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,1],"tags":[92,91,88,45,90,19,93],"class_list":["post-219","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-digital-rights","category-general","tag-annual-report","tag-data-protection","tag-data-protection-commissioner","tag-digital-rights-ireland","tag-dpa","tag-ireland","tag-state"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tuppenceworth.ie\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tuppenceworth.ie\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tuppenceworth.ie\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tuppenceworth.ie\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tuppenceworth.ie\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.tuppenceworth.ie\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tuppenceworth.ie\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tuppenceworth.ie\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tuppenceworth.ie\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}