Under Article 17 of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UKGDPR), individuals have the right to have personal data erased – the right to be forgotten.
This right applies if:-
- The personal data is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected/processed;
- They withdraw their consent on their data being held; or
- They object to their data being processed and there is no overriding legitimate interest to continue this processing.
This right does not apply if processing is necessary for:-
- Exercising the right of freedom of expression and information;
- Complying with a legal obligation;
- Performing a task in the public interest; or
- Establishing, exercising or defending legal claims.
Online search is a powerful tool for people to find out the background of each other. For those whose convictions are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (i.e. they are considered in law to have been rehabilitated and their criminal record is treated as if it never happened for most purposes), the right to be forgotten is particularly important as this is the way for them to move on with their lives. It forms the basis for them to compel search engine operators, like Google and Yahoo, to delist/remove webpages, such as news articles about their criminal acts, from search results for their names as the information contained in those webpages is irrelevant, outdated, inaccurate or unlawful.
Google Spain v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (Google Spain) [2014] All ER (D) 124 (May)
This case concerned a Spanish man who complained that an auction notice of his forced sale property on Google’s search results infringed his privacy and the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that:-
- Search engine operators are data controllers because although they do not control the personal data that was published on websites operated by others, their processing could be distinguished from and was additional to that;
- Search engine operators need to comply with data protection principles when operating their search engines. Processing of data that is inadequate, irrelevant or excessive may be incompatible with those principles; and
- In assessing whether to remove the alleged irrelevant data, a balancing test must be carried out between the rights of the data subject, those of the data controller and the interests of internet users. The nature of the information in question, its sensitivity for the data subject’s private life and the interests of the public of having that information are all relevant to that test.
Our Team specialises in data protection and will be able to advise you on making a request to the search engine operator about your spent conviction.
How can we help?
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you need any advice concerning the subject discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact usIf this article relates to a specific case/cases, please note that the facts of this case/cases are correct at the time of writing.