Background

Mr Matthew McConville, the Head of our specialised Data Breach Department at Irvings Law has successfully represented a client in a data breach compensation claim against the CPS. The identity of Mr McConville’s client will be redacted after request to ‘DG’ for the purposes of this blog.

Unfortunately, DG was assaulted by another person following a road traffic altercation and was then the complainant in the subsequent criminal case arising therefrom which was prosecuted by the CPS. DG’s assailant was charged however the CPS ultimately offered no evidence in relation to those charges and so the said assailant was acquitted.

Understandably, DG was concerned by the CPS’s conduct and handling of the said prosecution and sought a review of the prosecution decision pursuant to the Victim Right to Review Scheme. DG also filed a formal complaint to the CPS which was escalated to Stage 2 but when he chased for an update to this, he was advised that a response had been posted to him. Unfortunately, this postal letter was not received by DG and it later transpired that DG had in fact sent their Stage 2 response to an incorrect address because they had noted DG’s address erroneously.

Representation

DG then approached Mr McConville for specialist advice and without hesitation no win, no fee terms were offered. Once instructed, Mr McConville lodged a formal Letter of Claim to the CPS as clearly they had erroneously sent DG’s information to the wrong address. Mr McConville alleged that the CPS had breached / invaded DG’s privacy under the Human Rights Act, had breached the Data Protection Act 2018/the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as well as confidence following their misuse of private information pertaining to DG.

In response, the CPS admitted liability but argued that as the said letter was sent to an address that does not exist, there is no distress that has been caused to DG. Mr McConville continuously requested evidence from the CPS that such a letter was either returned to them or deemed undeliverable. However, the CPS could offer no evidence so in fact, there was arguably more distress caused to DG as his information (although limited to his name and complaint response) was nowhere to be found.

Despite invitation, the CPS refused to offer DG any compensation whatsoever so this left him with no other option but to issue and serve Court proceedings which Mr McConville duly actioned. Surprisingly, the CPS remained obstructive and unwilling to change their stance despite going through the Court process and Judges recommending they settle the matter.

Resolution

Finally and thankfully, the CPS eventually saw sense after DG’s case went through a Pre-Trial Review. The CPS offered DG £1,000.00 plus his legal costs to settle the matter prior to Trial and DG duly instructed Mr McConville to settle his case without a Trial taking place and clearly was an unnecessary expenditure of tax payer money by the CPS by defending the matter to the point they did.