Tag: 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

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”

Why does Wirral Council believe it can direct how filming of its public meetings are done (when not filmed by themselves)?

Why does Wirral Council believe it can direct how filming of its public meetings are done (when not filmed by themselves)?

Why does Wirral Council believe it can direct how filming of its public meetings are done (when not filmed by themselves)?

                                      

Birkenhead Constituency Committee (27th September 2018) L to R Cllr George Davies, Jo Burrell and David Kenneth Abraham
Birkenhead Constituency Committee (27th September 2018) L to R Cllr George Davies, Jo Burrell and David Kenneth Abraham

Since a legal change in August 2014, I have filmed eleven public meetings of Wirral Council’s Birkenhead Constituency Committee with no problems.

The press release issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in 2014 can be read at that link.

The 2014 legal change contained in the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 amended both the Local Government Act 1972 and Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (both of which had previously given a power to Wirral Council to stop filming at public meetings).
Continue reading “Why does Wirral Council believe it can direct how filming of its public meetings are done (when not filmed by themselves)?”