Name & Shame?

[mosy]

"Thing is Admin, if the crime got to a magistrates court then your last line is meaningless because the crime happened.

only if there is a conviction :

re. libel - then if you merely report what someone else has said then I dont think you can be prosecuted for it.

For example, if you were to say "The news shopper claims Mr X was a fruadster" (and the NS actually said that) then you couldn't comit libel.

I'd think it's really for Admin to satisfy himself rather than anything you or I or anyone else might say (clearly no disrespect to you intended). This link has some interesting pointers in the generality, though I think each case is determined singularly. Makes interesting reading for, erm, anyone who might be interested. Pretty boring or irrelevant otherwise.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A1183394

[lambchops]

"Newlands Park woman on indecency charge"

Have you got her number?

Cheers.

[Annie]

[quote="bensonby"]
only if there is a conviction :
quote]

Yes Bensonby only if convicted, i wouldn't want to name and shame any one innocent.

[mosy]

What if someone were given leave to appeal even though found guilty on the evidence presented at that time?

[Annie]

as i said only if found guilty, after all the appeals etc etc etc.

[admin]

I think I can put the the legal/libel worries to rest. The reports are a subset of courtroom reports appearing in newspapers. They are in the public domain, the proceedings can be reported and the intervening newspaper's lawyers are a final check.

And I should say it appears that Bromley Council & Magistrates themselves want these cases publicised ie named & shamed. It would be interesting to see if Lewisham thinks the same on this.

So it gets down to the social justice of reporting the stuff here. Yes it is one specific type of crime and hence only one type of criminal shamed. But is not shaming one an excuse for not shaming another? And they are not trivial and aimed at local people stealing community funds destined for the very poor.

As a further example here is £16,000 of your and my money gone west by a cheating Ibilola Bolatito Alli-Balogun of Canbury Mews (map: http://tinyurl.com/6kvnt9) as reported in Newsshopper here: http://tinyurl.com/5fekxw

My sense is that there is, on balance, a majority for Naming & Shaming in a restricted way. If anybody is unhappy with that conclusion we could run a poll.

Admin

[setmefree]

Hi All

Firstly may l say that l have enjoyed reading this thread, l did actually try to get the names of all who have been convicted of Benefit Fraud using the freedom of information act with my Local County Council, below is the email that l received.
This email clearly goes to prove that Fraudsters are actually more protected than shoplifters..please read and get ready to be shocked..

Names and telephone numbers removed

Deputy Chief Executive's Office
xxxxxx xxxxxxxx (Interim)


Mr setmefree

Email: Your Ref:
Our Ref:
Please ask for:
Direct Line / Extension:
Fax:
E-mail:
AJM/NMG/
xxxx xxxxxxxxxx
01432 xxxxxx
01432 xxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx@herefordshire.gov.uk
28 July 2008

Dear Mr xxxxxxx
RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION VIEW – BENEFIT FRAUD
I have been passed your file setting out your FOI request and the response to Mr xxxxx dated 10 June 2008. Your request is set out below:-
“….. a list of all people successfully prosecuted by the Herefordshire Benefit Investigation Unit for benefit fraud for the year 2006/2007 and 2007/2008”.
Mr xxxxx responded to your request as follows:
“the identities of those prosecuted for benefit fraud offences in the years 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 constitutes personal data and specifically sensitive personal data. Under Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act this information is therefore exempt from disclosure. In a situation such as this I am therefore obliged to consider your request under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. I am satisfied that the disclosure of those person’s details would breach the first Data Protection principle and therefore I am obliged to withhold them under that Act”.
You have asked me to review whether or not Mr xxxxxx response is correct and whether or not the information requested can be disclosed.
It is clear from the Freedom of Information Act that if personal data is about someone other than the requester for the information there is an exemption if disclosure would breach the data protection principle. The exemption in Section 40 is an absolute exemption.
In my view, this disclosure would be unlawful, there would be a breach of confidence and that the disclosure would cause unnecessary unjustified distress. In my view the release of information regarding the names of individuals subject to such prosecution would cause unnecessary distress and therefore under the basis of Section 40 I feel that as a result of my review the exemption applies.


In addition, it is my opinion, that the exemption under Section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act applies. This is a matter of Court record and Court records are not normally disclosed relating to individuals in these types of scenarios. I therefore apply that exemption also in respect of my review. I therefore regret that I am not able to respond positively to your request for this information. If you are not happy with my decision you may of course refer the matter to the Information Commissioner at the Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Chesire, SK9 5AF.
The Commissioner can be contacted on 01625 545 700 or at his website www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Yours sincerely


xxxx xxxxxxxxxx
ASSISTANT CHIEF EXECUTIVE
LEGAL AND DEMOCRATIC

[admin]

There are two different things here. Getting personal information from a local authority and the reporting of court cases.

IANAL but I can understand the reluctance of a local authority to disclose any personal data with possible come-backs from the person. Just asking the legal dept is going to cost ratepayer money. So, personally, I'm not too stressed about their reply.

I am assuming that Bromley/Greenwich/Lewisham are being a bit smarter than your authority in not disclosing THEIR data but helping to point reporters etc to privileged court proceedings which can and should be reported in full.

It might be useful to quote this back to your authority. They can be no less aggrieved by people ripping them off and would, I hope, welcome a device to expose the issue without having to worry about their own personal data.

I suppose, if you have the time, you could get your MP to review whether the legislation is intended to restrict local authorities in this way and amend it if that will help.

There are many ways to skin a cat ... as you can see wrongdoing need not be protected from the law ... it is often the jobworths that are the problem in hiding behind it.

BTW what is your connection with Sydenham?

Admin

[setmefree]

Hi Admin

I used the Google search tool with name and shame and your website came up, so l thought l would share my view with you. I have no connection otherwise..
I did make the Media aware of the fact, but to be honest no interest was given.

My gripe l suppose is the fact that if they think it would cause stress to those concerned then why do the following, please check out link below..

http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/council ... /23954.asp

Surely this is a case of cutting of their nose to spite their face

[bensonby]

I genuinely don't understand how it could be unlawful. All convictions (and the details therin) are in the public domain anyway....unless those involved are under 18 or the judge has made an order to prevent details being disclosed. I could quite easily pop into a court tomorrow and obtain the details of a case such as this.

Is it just that the council feels that it cannot release specific details that it holds? And that it is the court's job?

[admin]

Yes I see Herefordshire hare using the same device of quoting a court case. That is essentially what Lewisham, Bromley and Greenwich are doing.

The trick maybe to rephrase your request as to the time, place and possibly the name of successful prosecutions. This would contain no personal data. Its then up to you or someone to recover the personal info revealed in court.

Theoretically this could be different from the authority's data. An alternate address may be used such as in the case of marital breakup/women's refuge etc which would be in no one's interest to be revealed. It is what comes out in court that is important.

Just as you would not expect the police, in the case of your shoplifter or any other charged person, to disclose personal information from their records. Just general indications (eg a 45 year old man from London when everybody knew it was George Michael). So I don't think these swindlers have any special protection as you suggest.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? And blessed be Google that does help to put together all this stuff that might otherwise be buried in court records or some obscure local paper (or forum!)

Admin

[bensonby]

quite, the council wouldn't be able to disclose personal information, but I don't really understand why it can't limit the information and then release it:

"joe bloggs was convicted of benefit fraud"


rather than

"joe bloggs, dob 12/04/73, of 9 Somewhere close, sydenham was convicted..."


I do agree that modern media and the internet, for better or for worse, has made it much easier to piece together scraps of information about people and cases...that otherwise would have been buried or required a private investigator to uncover.

[admin]

Bensonby - even that is not safe. My wife is concerned with dealing with some benefit frauds. Very often a number of names are used (identity theft) of which some are entirely innocent. It is at court, hopefully, that the one and true identity, hence publishable personal info, are revealed.

That, not the authority, should be source - though the authority as we have seen are free to republish it - and IMHO should.

Admin

[setmefree]

Thanks Admin, they did infact give me the dates and convictions of those caught, so it is obvious that the first person who dealt with my request had a completely different view to his boss.the only refusal part was the names.

[setmefree]

Is it just that the council feels that it cannot release specific details that it holds? And that it is the court's job?

They gave me this

Successful Benefit Fraud prosecutions for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 (to date)

2006


Date Penalty

07/02/06 6 mth conditional discharge
no costs
04/05/06 18 mth conditional discharge
£50 costs
27/06/06 2 years conditional discharge
£100 costs
27/06/06 2 years conditional discharge
£50 costs
27/06/06 2 years conditional discharge
£200 costs
18/07/06 12 mth conditional discharge
£250 costs
24/07/06 12 mth supervision order
£500 costs
26/07/06 12 mth community order (40 hrs unpaid work)
£75 costs
22/08/06 18 mth conditional discharge
£150 costs
22/08/06 12 mth conditional discharge
no costs
26/09/06 £150 fine on each of three offences
£150 costs
04/10/06 12 mth conditional discharge
£100 costs
17/10/06 £150 fine
£150 costs
24/10/06 £350 fine
£200 costs
14/11/06 2 years conditional discharge
no costs
05/12/06 £400 fine
£100 costs
12/12/06 12 mth conditional discharge
£100 costs


2007


Date
Penalty
09/01/07 6 mths community order
£50 costs
09/01/07 £125 fine
£75 costs
09/01/07 £125 fine
£75 costs
26/01/07 12 mth conditional discharge
£275 costs
30/01/07 12 mth conditional discharge
£100 costs
06/02/07 12 mth conditional discharge
£75 costs
06/02/07 6 mths community order
£150 costs
26/03/07 18 mths conditional discharge
£3,000 costs
27/03/07 2 years conditional discharge
£350 costs
24/07/07 12 mth community penalty + 40 hrs unpaid work
24/07/07 12 mth community penalty + 100 hrs unpaid work
08/10/07 3 year conditional discharge
£250 costs
19/10/07 2 years conditional discharge
£150 costs
19/10/07 12 mths conditional discharge
£150 costs
29/10/07 12 mths conditional discharge
£150 costs
19/11/07 18 mth conditional discharge
£50 costs
19/11/07 12 mth conditional discharge
£50 costs


2008


Date
Penalty
25/01/08 £500
£175 costs
25/01/08 12 mth conditional discharge
£150 costs
22/02/08 £150 fine
£100 costs
22/02/08 12 mth conditional discharge
£175 costs
22/02/08 £250 fine
£90 costs
28/03/08 2 years conditional discharge
£175 costs
28/03/08 12 mth conditional discharge
£150 costs
25/04/08 6 month sentence (3 month custodial and 3 month “at liberty”)
13/05/08 18 mth conditional discharge
£80 costs

[raymondus]

"Newlands Park woman on indecency charge"

Have you got her number?

Cheers.

This omic gem seems to have passed people by so I bring it again to everyone's attention by way of public service.

On Data Protection, the council were quite right in not releasing the data - such data would be personal data held by the Council, notwithstanding the fact that the documents and information are in the public domain. I may be wrong but I believe that the threshold question is what the data is as opposed to where it came from - in this case, the data is sensitive because had they complied with your request, they would have given you a load of names - it does not matter where these names were harvested from.