WhatsApp Correspondence: Martin Newbold & ICO (Phillip)
Date: 2 May 2025

---

[09:47:34] Phillip:
Good morning. How can I help?

---

[09:48:22] Martin Newbold:
Dear Information Commissioner,

I am writing to raise concerns regarding potential data protection and accountability issues involving the office of the Lord Justice of Appeal (LJC).

I believe there may have been actions or decisions made by or associated with the LJC which raise questions under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. These may relate to the handling of personal data, lack of transparency, or the absence of adequate redress mechanisms for individuals affected by judicial decisions or administrative processes within the appellate court system.

I would like to understand the ICO’s position on the following:

1. To what extent is the Lord Justice of Appeal subject to data protection obligations under UK law?
2. Are there any exemptions for judicial office holders that prevent individuals from seeking recourse under data protection legislation?
3. How might a member of the public raise a complaint about data processing decisions made in the context of appellate court proceedings, particularly…

---

[09:48:52] Martin Newbold:
[Link shared]
https://thestealingofemily.co.uk/2025/05/02/public-outcry-for-transparency-where-is-the-justice/

---

[09:53:43] Phillip:
Data protection law provides a broad exemption from the UK GDPR for personal data processed for the purpose of legal proceedings. This is provided in Paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Where processing occurs in a judicial capacity, any concerns in this regard would fall outside our remit. Instead, you may be able to complain to the Judicial Data Protection Panel (JDPP). You can find guidance here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/JDPP-Request-Policy-April-2019.pdf

---

[09:55:30] Martin Newbold:
Hi Phillip,

Thank you for your response.

Just to clarify — the case in question is not current; it is an old case. My concern is specifically related to how personal data was handled during those past proceedings, not any ongoing legal action.

I understand the exemption for judicial capacity, but I believe the data protection implications of how the case was managed still warrant attention, particularly in terms of accuracy, proportionality, and potential long-term impact.

Could you please advise if the ICO can consider concerns related to the historic handling or retention of personal data in this context, or should this now be directed entirely to the Judicial Data Protection Panel?

---

[09:57:11] Phillip:
Whether the case is current or old, personal data processed by an organisation acting in a judicial capacity would fall outside our remit as set out above.

---

[09:58:10] Martin Newbold:
Hi Phillip,

Thank you for your reply.

Could I respectfully ask you to double-check this point: while I understand the exemption for processing in a judicial capacity, I am specifically referring to how personal data was handled in a historic case — particularly issues such as retention, proportionality, or potential inaccuracy that may still have ongoing data protection implications.

I would appreciate it if you could confirm whether there is any scope under the ICO’s remit to consider concerns about the long-term handling or retention of personal data from judicial proceedings, especially where this may now impact data subject rights.

If not, I understand your advice to contact the Judicial Data Protection Panel remains the appropriate next step — but I wanted to ensure no aspect was overlooked before doing so.

---

[09:59:35] Phillip:
[5/2/2025, 9:47:34 AM] Phillip: Good morning. How can I help?
[5/2/2025, 9:48:22 AM] Martin Newbold: Dear Information Commissioner,

I am writing to raise concerns regarding potential data protection and accountability issues involving the office of the Lord Justice of Appeal (LJC).

I believe there may have been actions or decisions made by or associated with the LJC which raise questions under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. These may relate to the handling of personal data, lack of transparency, or the absence of adequate redress mechanisms for individuals affected by judicial decisions or administrative processes within the appellate court system.

I would like to understand the ICO’s position on the following:

To what extent is the Lord Justice of Appeal subject to data protection obligations under UK law?

Are there any exemptions for judicial office holders that prevent individuals from seeking recourse under data protection legislation?

How might a member of the public raise a complaint about data processing decisions made in the context of appellate court proceedings, particularly
[5/2/2025, 9:48:52 AM] Martin Newbold: https://thestealingofemily.co.uk/2025/05/02/public-outcry-for-transparency-where-is-the-justice/
[5/2/2025, 9:53:43 AM] Phillip: Data protection law provides a broad exemption from the UK GDPR for personal data processed for the purpose of legal proceedings. This is provided in Paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Where processing occurs in a judicial capacity, any concerns in this regard would fall outside our remit. Instead, you may be able to complain to the Judicial Data Protection Panel. You can find guidance here:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/JDPP-Request-Policy-April-2019.pdf
[5/2/2025, 9:55:30 AM] Martin Newbold: Hi Philip,

Thank you for your response.

Just to clarify — the case in question is not current; it is an old case. My concern is specifically related to how personal data was handled during those past proceedings, not any ongoing legal action.

I understand the exemption for judicial capacity, but I believe the data protection implications of how the case was managed still warrant attention, particularly in terms of accuracy, proportionality, and potential long-term impact.

Could you please advise if the ICO can consider concerns related to the historic handling or retention of personal data in this context, or should this now be directed entirely to the Judicial Data Protection Panel?
[5/2/2025, 9:57:11 AM] Phillip: Whether the case is current or old, personal data processed by an organisation acting in a judicial capacity would fall outside our remit as set out above.
[5/2/2025, 9:58:10 AM] Martin Newbold: Hi Phillip,

Thank you for your reply.

Could I respectfully ask you to double-check this point: while I understand the exemption for processing in a judicial capacity, I am specifically referring to how personal data was handled in a historic case — particularly issues such as retention, proportionality, or potential inaccuracy that may still have ongoing data protection implications.

I would appreciate it if you could confirm whether there is any scope under the ICO’s remit to consider concerns about the long-term handling or retention of personal data from judicial proceedings, especially where this may now impact data subject rights.

If not, I understand your advice to contact the Judicial Data Protection Panel remains the appropriate next step — but I wanted to ensure no aspect was overlooked before doing so.
[5/2/2025, 9:59:35 AM] Phillip: We would not be able to consider such concerns and the advice I have given above is correct.
[5/2/2025, 10:00:26 AM] Martin Newbold: Hi Phillip,

Thank you for your response and for confirming the ICO’s position.

Could I kindly ask which specific piece of legislation or provision restricts the ICO from considering concerns about personal data processed in a judicial capacity, even in historic cases? I just want to fully understand the legal framework behind this limitation.

I appreciate your guidance on this matter.
[5/2/2025, 10:03:45 AM] Phillip: As noted above, the exemption is provided in Paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/schedule/2/paragraph/14/enacted

The guidance linked above also explains that the JDPP is the correct organisation to which to submit complaints regarding the processing of personal data by organisations acting in a judicial capacity.
[5/2/2025, 10:03:50 AM] Phillip: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/JDPP-Request-Policy-April-2019.pdf
[5/2/2025, 10:05:54 AM] Martin Newbold: Points to Consider and Clarify:
Access to Personal Data:

Under GDPR, individuals generally have the right to access their personal data. However, in the context of judicial processing, this may be restricted due to the legal exemption, especially if the data is related to legal proceedings.

It may be important to clarify if or how a person can access personal data held by judicial bodies, given the exemption, especially for historical cases.

The Scope of the JDPP’s Authority:

While the JDPP oversees the judicial data protection framework, it might not be as widely known or understood as other bodies like the ICO. It would be worth understanding what specific oversight the JDPP provides, especially for historical data, and what the complaint process looks like.

Other Rights in Judicial Capacity:

While GDPR rights like rectification, erasure, and data portability might be limited in judicial matters, it’s important to confirm if any alternative rights are available
[5/2/2025, 10:06:33 AM] Martin Newbold: ince the exemption under Paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 removes the ICO’s remit over personal data processed by judicial bodies, it’s understandable that there may be confusion or a lack of transparency about what rights are still available.
[5/2/2025, 10:08:03 AM] Phillip: I’m unable to provide further guidance than as set out above.

Where you have concerns about the processing of your personal data by an organisation acting in a judicial capacity, you may wish to submit your complaint to the JDPP.

As I am unable to advise other than the above, is there anything else I can help you with today?
[5/2/2025, 10:08:03 AM] Martin Newbold: GDPR and the Judicial Exemption:
GDPR establishes several fundamental rights for individuals regarding their personal data, including:

• The right of access (Article 15)
• The right to rectification (Article 16)
• The right to erasure (Article 17)
• The right to object (Article 21)

[5/2/2025, 10:08:16 AM] Martin Newbold: However, Paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides a broad exemption for personal data processed for the purposes of legal proceedings. This exemption applies to:

Personal data processed by organisations acting in a judicial capacity (e.g., courts, judicial bodies, and legal proceedings).
[5/2/2025, 10:09:38 AM] Martin Newbold: It seems there is a conflict or tension between the principles of data protection under GDPR and the judicial exemptions outlined in the Data Protection Act 2018
[5/2/2025, 10:10:29 AM] Phillip: Parliament is responsible for creating legislation. If you have concerns regarding this, you may wish to raise them with your local MP.
[5/2/2025, 10:10:42 AM] Martin Newbold: That is not what I asked.
[5/2/2025, 10:12:15 AM] Phillip: I have provide guidance regarding our remit and the application of the exemption in relation to judicial proceedings. I am unable to advise other than above. If you do not have any queries outside the scope of what we have discussed above, I will need to close the chat and move on to help other customers.
[5/2/2025, 10:12:40 AM] Martin Newbold: Thank you for the information and clarification regarding the judicial data processing exemption. While I understand your remit and the boundaries of your advice, I would like to ensure I pursue the right course of action moving forward. Given the challenges with historical cases and access to personal data, it seems like I might need to raise these concerns with a more appropriate body, such as the Judicial Data Protection Panel (JDPP), or seek further assistance from my MP on the broader implications.

If there are any other avenues I can explore, I would appreciate your guidance.

Thank you again for your time and assistance.
[5/2/2025, 10:13:57 AM] Phillip: I am only able to advise on data protection law. You may wish to seek independent legal advise in order to determine what other options are available to you.
[5/2/2025, 10:15:59 AM] Martin Newbold: The issue at hand is that, under the Data Protection Act 2018, personal information processed by judicial bodies, such as courts, is exempt from data protection rights. This exemption prevents access to personal data from historical cases, which could potentially prejudice any new legal proceedings. The inability to obtain this information from the court, due to its judicial capacity, creates a significant challenge, as it hinders the ability to fully address or present crucial details in a new case.
[5/2/2025, 10:17:30 AM] Phillip: As above, where you consider the law is flawed, this would be a matter to raise with your MP.
[5/2/2025, 10:18:50 AM] Phillip: Is there anything else I can help you with today?
[5/2/2025, 10:19:41 AM] Martin Newbold: Yes, it seems that Phillip arrived at this thought based on your discussions. His comment—“where you consider the law is flawed, this would be a matter to raise with your MP”—suggests that he is recognizing the possibility that the law might not be ideal or that it could have flaws, but because it’s outside the ICO’s remit, it’s a matter for Parliament to address.

• Understanding the Complexity of Peerage Revocation and NCA
• Corruption Investigations: IBAC’s Limitations Explained
• Child Trafficking Concerns and the EHCR
• Guide Series How to Report Child Abduction a complete Procedure
• Reinvestigating Child Exploitation Cases: Operation BeaconPort