Kololo v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

A subject access request is not an abuse of process merely because the requester hopes to use the information in foreign criminal appeal proceedings. The court’s discretion under section 7(9) of the Data Protection Act 1998 is broad but must serve the Act’s purposes and remain proportionate. Verification of personal-data accuracy, and correction of inaccuracies under section 14, are proper statutory purposes. Collateral proceedings do not themselves justify refusal. Compliance remains subject to applicable exemptions.

The claimant, convicted and sentenced to death in Kenya, sought access to all records held about him by the Metropolitan Police Service. He intended principally to investigate possible inaccuracies and potentially obtain material relevant to his Kenyan appeal. The Commissioner refused the request, arguing that it circumvented section 13 of the Crime (International Co-Operation) Act 2003 and that compliance should be refused under section 7(9) of the Data Protection Act 1998.

The issues were whether the request was an abuse of process and whether compliance should be ordered despite its connection with foreign criminal proceedings.

1. Application granted. The request was not an abuse of process. R(Omar) v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office concerned a common-law Norwich Pharmacal remedy where CICA covered the ground. It did not make CICA exclusive where access was sought under the distinct DPA scheme.
2. Section 7(9) confers a general and untrammelled discretion, to be exercised consistently with the DPA’s purposes and proportionately. Section 27(5) did not remove that discretion.
3. Verification of personal data and correction of inaccuracies are proper statutory purposes. The proposed use of information in collateral appellate proceedings did not itself justify refusal. The death sentence made compliance proportionate.
4. The Commissioner could still refuse specific disclosure under section 29 or other applicable exemptions. The declaration sought was refused as adding nothing. The Commissioner was ordered to comply with the request.