The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Tag: Dan Tench (Page 1 of 2)

Online Harms White Paper: The Government’s Initial Consultation Response – Cathryn Hopkins and Dan Tench

On 12 February 2020 the Government published its initial response (the “Response”) to last year’s Online Harms White Paper consultation. The Response leaves many issues concerning the regulatory and legislative structure yet to be decided (such as funding and enforcement powers), with the final policy to be published by the Government in the spring. Continue reading

Case Law: R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal, Parliament’s “ouster” of High Court judicial review powers is not binding – Omar Qureshi, Dan Tench and Cathryn Hopkins

On 15 May 2019, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal ([2019] UKSC 22), deciding by a slim majority of 4:3 that an “ouster clause” in section 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”) that purports to exclude from challenge or appeal any decision of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (“IPT”), does not prevent a judicial review challenge based on an error of law. Continue reading

Digital Economy Bill, Clause 64, HMRC information – Dan Tench

hmrc-2In a post on 26 July 2016, I wrote about three curiosities arising from Part 5 of the Digital Economy Bill which provides for the sharing of information in government.  There is however one further important curiosity relating to Part 5 of the Bill concerning information held by HMRC and arising from a case recently before the Supreme Court, R (Ingenious Media and Anr) v HMRCContinue reading

Case Law: Cheshire West and Chester Council v Pickthall, Harassment and pursuing criminal conduct – Dan Tench

Cheshire-West-and-Chester-CouncilIn Cheshire West and Chester Council and others v Pickthall, [2015] EWHC 2141 (QB) Mr Justice Edis granted an interim injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (the “PHA”) to restrain the defendant from publishing allegations of criminal conduct on the part of the claimant Council and various individuals associated with it.  In doing so, he showed the balance between freedom of expression and protection from harassment at the interim stage. Continue reading

Case Law: OPO v James Rhodes (formerly MLA): Pianist’s book unbanned, no intention to cause distress – Dan Tench

InstrumentalThe Supreme Court handed down today its judgment in OPO v MLA ([2015] UKSC 32), the case in which the Court of Appeal had – extraordinarily – granted an injunction to prevent the publication of a book solely on the ground that it might cause psychological harm to the author’s son. In a compelling and comprehensive judgment, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and discharged the injunction. Continue reading

« Older posts

© 2020 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑