Mr Matthew McConville, Head of Irvings Law’s specialist Data Breach Department, has successfully represented a client in a claim for compensation against the Ministry of Justice. Due to confidentiality, the client will be referred to as Mr S.
Mr S was released from prison on probation. His probation was managed by the National Probation Service. A condition of his probation was that he not enter a particular restriction zone without informing and obtaining the permission of his probation officer. Following his release, Mr S, who had a history of alcohol dependence, decided to participate in a detox programme. This was entirely voluntary and was not a condition of his probation. As the detox programme was located in the restricted zone, Mr S duly informed his probation officer and requested permission to attend, which she granted. Entirely voluntarily, he further granted his probation officer permission to communicate with the programme to monitor his progress and treatment. Then, Mr S’ mother was told by Mr S’ ex-partner that the fact that Mr S had participated in such a programme had been made known to his ex-partner, with whom he had a son with. The Ministry of Justice had not informed Mr S of the disclosure nor had it sought his prior consent to make it. In response to this incident, the Ministry of Justice informed Mr S of the Disclosure, describing it as “a breach of your privacy” and offering “a sincere apology”.
Given the above, Mr S approached specialist Data Breach Solicitors, Irvings Law, for assistance. Mr McConville immediately acknowledged that what happened was completely wrong and without hesitation, offered to act for Mr S by way of “no win, no fee” presenting a claim to the Ministry of Justice on the basis his human rights to privacy were breached as well as GDPR following this misuse of private information.
After presenting the claim, the Ministry of Justice surprisingly did not respond so Mr S was left with no other option but to issue proceedings. Upon notification of this, the Ministry of Justice wished to settle Mr S’ claim and an agreement was reached not long after such discussions took place in the sum of £8,850.00 plus the payment of his legal costs.