Jack Beecham found not guilty on two counts of alleged breaches of section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018

Jack Beecham found not guilty on two counts of alleged breaches of section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018

Jack Beecham found not guilty on two counts of alleged breaches of section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018

                                                                

Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts (Liverpool Crown Court), Derby Square, Liverpool, L2 1XA (5th January 2019)
Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts (Liverpool Crown Court), Derby Square, Liverpool, L2 1XA (5th January 2019)

By John Brace (Editor)
First publication date: Wednesday 16th August 2023, 13:11 (BST).

On Friday 11th August 2023, at a pre-trial hearing in ICO v Jack Beecham, I was the only journalist present for two pre-trial hearings (one hearing starting at 1.14 pm ending at 2.59 pm, the second from 4.03 pm to 4.59 pm), which HHJ Murray imposed reporting restrictions on.

Although the Judicial College guidance to the judiciary states in general that such reporting restrictions would generally lapse following the trial phase, following an a representation opposing this from the press on Monday 14th August 2023 HHJ Murray decided to continue with such restrictions in the interests of justice.
Continue reading “Jack Beecham found not guilty on two counts of alleged breaches of section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018”

Applications by Defendant Jack Beecham to vacate 14th August 2023 trial date and have public funds pay for transcript of previous hearing both denied by HHJ Swinnerton at Liverpool Crown Court

Applications by Defendant Jack Beecham to vacate 14th August 2023 trial date and have public funds pay for transcript of previous hearing both denied by HHJ Swinnerton at Liverpool Crown Court

Applications by Defendant Jack Beecham to vacate 14th August 2023 trial date and have public funds pay for transcript of previous hearing both denied by HHJ Swinnerton at Liverpool Crown Court

                                                          

By John Brace (Editor)
First publication date: Friday 28th July 2023, 17:36 (BST).

Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts (Liverpool Crown Court), Derby Square, Liverpool, L2 1XA (5th January 2019)
Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts (Liverpool Crown Court), Derby Square, Liverpool, L2 1XA (5th January 2019)

Previous published articles on this blog about hearings in this case can be read at:-

ICO accuse Jack Beecham of breaching bail conditions (24th November 2022)

and

Trial of Jack Beecham at Liverpool Crown Court delayed due to COVID (8th November 2022)


This was a For Mention hearing heard before His Honour Judge Swinnerton in Court 4–3 on the fourth floor of the Liverpool Crown Court. The Defendant was Mr Jack Beecham (who was present but unrepresented, but not sitting in the dock). Representing ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) was Mark Friend (who was a barrister at Lincoln House Chambers).

This was a hybrid For Mention hearing as although Mr Jack Beecham was present physically, Mark Friend (for the prosecution – ICO) joined remotely via video. The hearing was listed to start at 2.00 pm on Monday 10th July 2023.
Continue reading “Applications by Defendant Jack Beecham to vacate 14th August 2023 trial date and have public funds pay for transcript of previous hearing both denied by HHJ Swinnerton at Liverpool Crown Court”

ICO accuse Jack Beecham of breaching bail conditions

ICO accuse Jack Beecham of breaching bail conditions

ICO accuse Jack Beecham of breaching bail conditions

                                                          

By John Brace (Editor)
First publication date: Thursday 24th November 2022, 17:45 (GMT).

Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts (Liverpool Crown Court), Derby Square, Liverpool, L2 1XA (5th January 2019)
Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts (Liverpool Crown Court), Derby Square, Liverpool, L2 1XA (5th January 2019)

This hearing had been originally scheduled to start at 10.00 am, however the start of the hearing was delayed. This was because the barrister (Miss Anam Khan) for ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) wasn’t present in the court room in person. She virtually appeared at the hearing using the Cloud Video Platform (CVP), however as the listings section of Liverpool Crown Court hadn’t told this information to the Clerk, there was a delayed start due to some initial confusion as to what was going on before Miss Anam Khan appeared at the hearing virtually on the screens in the court room.
Continue reading “ICO accuse Jack Beecham of breaching bail conditions”

Trial of Jack Beecham at Liverpool Crown Court delayed due to COVID

Trial of Jack Beecham at Liverpool Crown Court delayed due to COVID

Trial of Jack Beecham at Liverpool Crown Court delayed due to COVID

                                                          

By John Brace (Editor)
First publication date: Tuesday 8th November 2022, 14:46 (GMT).

Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts (Liverpool Crown Court), Derby Square, Liverpool, L2 1XA (5th January 2019)
Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts (Liverpool Crown Court), Derby Square, Liverpool, L2 1XA (5th January 2019)

The trial of Jack Beecham, of Wirral didn’t start as planned before HHJ (His Honor Judge) Swinnerton in Court 43 at the Liverpool Crown Court this morning (7th November 2022).

The hearing started at 10.50 am, as before it there were a couple of short “For Ground Rules” hearings relating to completely different cases.
Continue reading “Trial of Jack Beecham at Liverpool Crown Court delayed due to COVID”

Merseyside Police paid £2,900 annual data registration fee to ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) late for 2nd year running and only after being threatened again with a £4,350 Monetary Penalty Notice

Merseyside Police paid £2,900 annual data registration fee to ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) late for 2nd year running and only after being threatened again with a £4,350 Monetary Penalty Notice

Merseyside Police paid £2,900 annual data registration fee to ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) late for 2nd year running and only after being threatened again with a £4,350 Monetary Penalty Notice

                                     

Merseyide Police paid their data registration fee to ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) late after being threatened with a fine
Merseyide Police paid their data registration fee to ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) late after being threatened with a fine

By John Brace (Editor) and Leonora Brace (Co-Editor)

First publication date: 4th January 2021, 11:50 (GMT)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who guards the guardians?)

As emails published below show, Merseyside Police failed to pay their annual data protection registration fee of £2,900 to ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) in 2019 and their registration as a data controller lapsed on 8th September 2019. Although Merseyside Police did pay the £2,900 fee on 26th September 2019, this was only after ICO emailed Merseyside Police stating that ICO could issue a £4,350 Monetary Penalty Notice (on top of the £2,900 data protection fee) if the £2,900 payment was not made within 14 days of the reminder email.
Continue reading “Merseyside Police paid £2,900 annual data registration fee to ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) late for 2nd year running and only after being threatened again with a £4,350 Monetary Penalty Notice”

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other