I'm proud to have volunteered and worked at several of those helplines,and met Esther on several occasions. She leaves an incredible legacy.
Paul Brocklehurst
@paulbrock.co.uk
404 followers 1.1K following 531 posts
Working to end youth homelessness. Also posts on current affairs, active travel, genealogy and photography. AI free. he/him.
![Article 8 privacy and data protection
Further, and in any event, we remind you of the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 the "Act).
We refer you to the chronology of events set out at (2) above. You will therefore appreciate that pursuant to the Act our client's conviction is spent, as of 14 December 20244.
A conviction which is spent for the
purposes of the Act is that person's private information pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As the Supreme Court put it:
"As [the conviction] recedes into the past, it becomes a part of the person's private life".
That principle was upheld more recently in NT1 & NT2 v Google LLC®.
Our client therefore has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information. In all the circumstances, given the lack of any legitimate or genuine justification for publicising it, whether on X, Substack or otherwise, there can be no public interest in the publication you have threatened and already effected, let alone one which is sufficiently strong to outweigh the compelling Article 8 rights of our client.
NT1&NT2 also clarified that a person's criminal conviction, particularly if that conviction is spent, constitutes personal data and is therefore protected by UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 ("DPA").
2(1999] UKHL 45
Section 1(1) and 1(4)(a), Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
* Section 5(2), ibid
5 R(L) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009) UKSC 3 at (27]
• (2018] EWHC 799 (QB)
10-113064784-2068140-0
4
Dr J T D Wilson
10 April 2026
The provisions of the UK GDR concering the processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences are detailed and onerous, imposing a higher duty of care on controllers and processors of such information, which in this case is you.
It is highly unlikely that the journalism exemption under the DPA® would be applicable in these circumstances, given that (a) you are not a journalist, and (b) in any event, not only - for the …](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:movn6xzezospl7lnkhy7nzpt/bafkreidkd36t4s5z47luqrplaqxizdb42nj2icbdagyxai6dsrygjnt5wi)
