Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

UK Forced Data Access Illegal As of Dec. 1

By Andr' Bywater and Patrick O’Kane
November 30, 2014

The practice of employers forcing current employees (applying for new positions internally) or prospective employees to obtain and disclose the results of a data access request from the police is now a criminal offense in the UK as of Dec. 1, 2014.

It has been increasingly common for employers to ask employees to make a data access request, since the rules on background checks were changed. This change in the law seeks to temper the power of employers to demand to see criminal records and force candidates to disclose old or irrelevant convictions. It was always an arbitrary power. It struck fear into the hearts of some candidates because they may have thought that, for example, a disorderly behaviour conviction from their University days could cast a shadow over their future employment prospects.

In the UK, an employer conducting background checks will process a significant amount of personal data, likely including whether a job candidate has a criminal record. This is particularly common in some positions such as in financial services or working with children. The request by an employer for any prior convictions is lawful, subject to a person's consent, but only where relevant for the position in question. To date, employers may have been tempted to access data beyond what they could usually access ' such as for spent convictions (where a person has not reoffended and is rehabilitated) or cautions (a formal warning where an adult has admitted an offense, used by the police to resolve a case where full prosecution is not considered appropriate). Forcing a person to obtain this information by making an official “subject access request” (under UK data protection law) is now outlawed. Ireland also now has a similar provision in place.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.