This case is significant because it highlights the overlap between data protection, defamation law and journalistic reporting. At the heart of this case was the issue of whether certain personal data published in articles could be categorised as “criminal offence data” under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). The Court’s determination of this issue has broader implications for data protection claims, particularly in the context of media reporting on legal proceedings.
Pacini & Anor v Dow Jones & Company Inc [2024] EWHC 2714 (KB)
Facts
The Claimants were former investment bankers and senior executives of the XIO Group. The Defendant, Dow Jones & Company Incorporated, published two articles in 2017 and 2018. These articles focused on a legal dispute between the XIO Group and an investor, Xie Zhikun, who accused the XIO Group of defrauding him out of nearly $1 billion.
In the context of reporting these allegations, the articles contained personal data about the Claimants. The Claimants argued that the personal data included in the articles was inaccurate and sought to have it erased. The legal question arose regarding the meaning of the personal data within the articles and whether this data could be classified as criminal offence data.
The Claimants contended that the articles carried personal data that suggested there were reasonable grounds to suspect them of criminal activities, including conspiracy to defraud and receiving secret profits from fraud. They argued that this type of data should be classified as “criminal offence data” under Article 10 of the UK GDPR.
The Defendants argued that the articles were neutral reports about ongoing legal proceedings and did not directly accuse the Claimants of any criminal conduct.
In its decision, the Court adopted a nuanced approach, applying principles from defamation law while also considering the specific context of data protection claims.
1. Defamation law principles: The Court applied well-established principles from defamation law to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the personal data in the articles. These principles included the repetition rule, which dictates that repeating defamatory statements may be considered defamatory in their own right. While the Court acknowledged the relevance of defamation law, it also took a more granular approach suited to data protection claims. The Court focused on the specific context of the articles and the personal data contained in them, rather than looking at the matter through a general defamation lens.
2. Allegations, not criminal conduct: The Court concluded that the articles did not accuse the Claimants of criminal conduct. Rather, the articles merely reported on allegations made in ongoing civil proceedings.
3. Repetition rule: The Court upheld the application of the Repetition Rule. It found that there was no legal basis for creating such an exception and determined that the repetition rule applied equally to data protection claims as it does in defamation law.
The Court’s decision
Ultimately, the Court ruled that the personal data contained in the articles did not constitute “criminal offence data” as defined under Article 10 of the UK GDPR. The Court found that the information reported in the articles did not imply that the Claimants were involved in criminal conduct, but instead reflected the allegations made during civil proceedings.
Implications for data protection and media reporting
This judgment reinforces that data protection claims cannot automatically equate to defamation claims. It also establishes that personal data reported in journalistic articles—especially those concerning legal disputes—must be carefully assessed in context, with the Court applying a data protection framework that goes beyond defamation standards.
For media organisations, the case also emphasises the importance of considering the boundaries between reporting on legal allegations and inadvertently implying criminal conduct about individuals. While the press has a right to report on legal matters, it is crucial that these reports are handled carefully within the bounds of both defamation and data protection laws.
How can we help?
Amrik Basra is a Trainee Solicitor in our Private Litigation team.
At Nelsons, our team specialises in these types of disputes and includes members of The Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS). The team is also recommended by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500, as one of the top teams of specialists in the country.
If you have concerns about the above subject, please contact Amrik or a member of our expert Dispute Resolution team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us