You are here:

Key facts of the case:

The appellant is prosecuted for hiring an assassin. He has been convicted but has appealed the decision. News media have covered the case and people can find out detailed information using Google Search and typing the name of appellant. The appellant demands that this data is erased or corrected, relying on the Data Protection Act in particular, which ensures the privacy of personal data. 

Outcome of the case:

The Court of Appeal feels that the appellant is not entitled to the protection of his personal data, as he has, among other things, hired the assassin in cold blood, as was shown in a television programme (images having been made with a hidden camera) and as there is tremendous public upheaval. The Court of Appeal holds that the public at large has sufficient interest in being able to access the information, so that this prevails over the criminal’s privacy (public interest).