British Pregnancy Advisory Service v The Person Using the Alias "Pablo Escobar"

Before proceedings are issued, the court may grant an interim non-disclosure order to protect information where there is a strong case that the information is private and confidential, was unlawfully obtained, and should not be published. Where the circumstances of the obtaining and intended disclosure create a real risk that advance contact would frustrate protection of the information or related investigations, the requirements of section 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 may be satisfied. A short order may be appropriate to enable investigations and notification of affected persons.

The claimant, a charity providing information about contraception and related matters, applied before issuing proceedings for protection of private and confidential information obtained during a concerted cyber attack on its website. More than 26,000 attempts had been made to access the website. The person using the alias “Pablo Escobar” appeared to have obtained details of website contacts and intended to disclose them. The application was heard in private, and the defendant was neither present nor represented.

The central issues were whether interim protection should be granted without contacting the defendant in advance and whether the requirements of section 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 were met.

1. The application for an interim non-disclosure order was granted before proceedings were issued. The order prevented the person using the alias “Pablo Escobar” from using the information for a short period.
2. The court considered that the claimant was likely to establish at trial that the information was private and confidential, that it had been unlawfully obtained, and that publication should not be permitted.
3. A private hearing was strictly necessary because investigations and protective steps needed to be taken in response to the cyber attack. The police had been informed, the Information Commissioner was being notified, and active efforts were being made to identify the person responsible.
4. In light of the way the information had been obtained and the evidence of the intended disclosure, there were compelling reasons not to contact, or attempt to contact, the defendant before the hearing. The requirements of section 12(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 were therefore satisfied.
5. The short duration of the order allowed the police to conduct investigations and enabled the claimant to contact persons who might be affected by the defendant’s activities. The court later made public this summary because the defendant had been arrested and had pleaded guilty to two offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.