Judgment reserved in case over alleged Alan Shatter data breach

A High Court judge has reserved judgment on former minister of justice Alan Shatter’s challenge to a finding his disclosure on live television of information concerning Independents4Change TD Mick Wallace was done in breach of his statutory duties under the Data Protection Act.

Mr Shatter denies his reference during an RTÉ Prime Time interview in May 2013 to Mr Wallace being allegedly cautioned by gardaí for allegedly using a mobile phone while driving amounted to a use and disclosure of Mr Wallace's personal data.

Mr Shatter has appealed over the Circuit Civil Court’s dismissal of his challenge to the Data Protection Commissioner’s decision that his disclosure breached his statutory duties under the Act.

Mr Wallace complained to the commission after the broadcast and has taken separate civil proceedings against the Minister for Justice, and against Mr Shatter personally, over the matter which have yet to be heard.

Conclusion

In his High Court proceedings, Mr Shatter claims then data protection commissioner Billy Hawkes failed to set out the basis for his conclusion that the information was personal data and had prejudged that issue and acted in breach of fair procedures.

Mr Shatter’s lawyers have said he never had, or saw, any written record of the information communicated to him during a conversation with then Garda commissioner Martin Callanan, the information was “in his mind” only and what he said did not amount to “processing” it.

The Data Protection Commissioner maintains Mr Shatter “processed” data of Mr Wallace’s within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Act.

The definition of processing means using and disclosing personal data and to do that involved an act of processing, Paul Anthony McDermott SC, for the commissioner, argued.

Commissioner

In closing arguments on Thursday, Eileen Barrington SC, for Mr Shatter, said, while Mr McDermott has told the court Mr Shatter had said he should never have done what he did, the court should note Mr Shatter has never made any concession that what he did was unlawful or had breached the acts.

Her side had also never suggested the commissioner had any animus against Mr Shatter or had acted in bad faith, she added.

After the three-day hearing concluded on Thursday before Mr Justice Charles Meenan, he reserved judgment.