Decision on application for court order requesting correction of Jack Beecham’s personal data held by Merseyside Police adjourned

Decision on application for court order requesting correction of Jack Beecham’s personal data held by Merseyside Police adjourned

Decision on application for court order requesting correction of Jack Beecham’s personal data held by Merseyside Police adjourned


Birkenhead County Court entrance 5th October 2018
Birkenhead County Court entrance 5th October 2018 which was the venue for the hearing

By John Brace – Editor

Comments are turned off due to the ongoing nature of the case.

First publication date: 9th May 2024, 16:08 (GMT)

This is a report of a hearing (in public) held on Friday 26th April 2024 in case brought by Jack Beecham (Claimant) against the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police (Defendant). The case reference number is L40B1014 and was heard before Deputy District Judge Dawson.

Mr Jack Beecham was present at the hearing (not represented). Nobody appeared at the hearing for Merseyside Police.

Deputy District Judge Dawson started by stating that the case had been listed in error for a 10 minute slot for pre-application disclosure and that ordinarily there’d be a claim form, rather than a free standing application. He continued by pointing out that he had another case listed in 9 minutes and that this would be a one hour case to be dealt with fairly with sufficient time, the other difficulty he had was the basis of the application, as a starting point he would expect a claim form rather than a free standing application.

As Jack Beecham was unrepresented, he was not going to take the view to strike it out as wrong in how it had been presented, but practically, he could only fairly do one thing, which was set it down to be heard with more time, which would give DDJ Dawson an opportunity to direct Mr Beecham to submit a witness statement explaining a number of things, essentially two things needed to be explained to the Court in his application, if Mr Beecham didn’t then his application may be struck out.

The two things Mr Beecham needed to explain was what data specifically needed to be rectified, making it very clear what data they have, why they had it and why Mr Beecham needed it to be changed and the legal basis for the Court as to the what and the why.

Mr Beecham repied that this was all in the bundle.

DDJ Dawson continued that Mr Beecham, in his statement, needed to make a narrative statement explaining and a very important second thing he needed to explain was why the Court had power on a free standing application to hear this case, his starting point was not to tie the hands of a future Court, but he would include half an hour of reading time, he hadn’t had time to read the relevant section of the White Book, but off the cuff he thought the Court wouldn’t have the power to decide on a free standing application.

His provisional view of the case was that it needed to come back and be listed for a longer time period, to give time to hear arguments, as Mr Beecham was not represented, as the time listing was woefully inadequate. An hour for the hearing and 30 minutes reading time for the Judge, which were not the usual arguments heard every day of the week, so it would be listed in that way and adjourned for the next available date after 21 days, to allow that to happen, within the next 2 weeks from today, Mr Beecham would have to send to the Court and the police a witness statement explaining what data specifically should be changed, why it should be changed and why the Court had the power to decide on a free standing application, that was the best DDJ Dawson could do so that the application would be dealt with properly, fairly and throughly, did Jack Beecham understand (bearing in mind Jack was not represented)?

Jack Beecham said he was 73 years old and the matter had been going on since 2010 and he explained some of the history and that a police superintendent had lost his job, he referred to a FOI request and how he’d been informed that whilst the police superintendent had been working in Merseyside Police he was known as dishonest. Mr Jack Beecham referred to what DS Spike had done 5 years ago and how six of 7 complaints had been upheld…

DJ Dawson asked was was the reference to PNB?

Jack Beecham said pocket note book, DDJ Dawson replied briefly to this.

Jack Beecham said that Cloherty had been found to be dishonest 5 years ago, so the crux was this pocket note book, there had been an order by a Crown Court Judge that notebook 20461 be brought to Court, however notebook 257612 was produced, which was one dated 27th, which could not have been in use.

DDJ Dawson asked if false records needed to be corrected?

Jack Beecham explained that was not possible without a court order, but that he also wanted to know what had been done with the lost one as he must be the data subject in that one.

DDJ Dawson said he appreciated that, he would expect the application by the party who was bringing a complaint to fully set this all out very, very clearly and that he would order Jack Beecham to file a statement and to bear with him whilst he wrote the order.

Jack Beecham asked if that meant he should keep quiet?

DDJ Dawson (after finishing writing) said that he would order it to be relisting for a directions hearing at the next available date after 21 days, the Court would write to Mr Beecham, he had noted that due to Mr Beecham’s mobility issue it would be down here so that Jack Beecham wouldn’t have a problem, the estimated length was 1 hour, to allow 30 minutes of judicial reading time. So that the Court was appraised of the facts, he ordered that by 4 pm on 10th May 2024 (2 weeks today) as Applicant, he would sent the Court and Defendant (Merseyside Police) a signed and dated witness statement that would identify the specific data to be rectified and reasons why the Court should make such an order and why the Court has power in that way regarding it, he asked if Mr Beecham understood the order and what he needed to do after today?

Jack Beecham replied, “yes”.

DDJ Dawson said that the case was concluded and that the Court would write to Mr Beecham with the new date, but it would be listed in Court Room 1.

Jack Beecham replied in answer that that was to hear the unusual application, in answer DDJ Dawson confirmed.

In response to another point of Jack Beecham’s, DDJ Dawson said that he didn’t say his provisional way was or wasn’t correct, to which Jack referred to correspondence from ICO.

DDJ Dawson said he had seen the emails.

Jack Beecham made a further point, to which DDJ Dawson replied that he couldn’t give Jack Beecham legal advice, he didn’t know whether legal aid was available, or an advice clinic locally or Citizens Advice, but that was entirely a matter for Mr Beecham, who should approach the court usher who could make enquiries to try and help.

Jack Beecham replied that he had tried in the past, but he trusted himself more.

DDJ Dawson heard what he said, but that the Court won’t be able to give legal advice.

Jck Beecham asked another question, to which DDJ Dawson said he couldn’t give Jack Beecham advice, followed by that he hadn’t reviewed the legislation, even if he knew the answer, it was not the Judge’s function to give advice, there were two parties, if he gave advice Merseyside Police would not be very happy as he had to be an impartial arbiter, but that he needed to interrupt as he had run over, and needed to call the next case.

Jack Beecham thanked DDJ Dawson and DDJ Dawson wished him well.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Author: John Brace

New media journalist from Birkenhead, England who writes about Wirral Council. Published and promoted by John Brace, 134 Boundary Road, Bidston, CH43 7PH. Printed by UK Webhosting Ltd t/a Tsohost, 113-114 Buckingham Avenue, Slough, Berkshire, England, SL1 4PF.

Privacy Preference Center