A UK businessman has been successful in the High Court in bringing proceedings against Google after the multinational technology company refused to remove search engine results about his past criminal convictions, violating the claimant’s ‘right to be forgotten’. However, the Court also denied a claim from another businessman who had been convicted of more serious crimes.
The unsuccessful claimant, NT1, was convicted for conspiracy to account falsely and a sentence of 4 years was imposed. The successful claimant, NT2, was convicted of committing conspiracy to intercept communications and was imprisoned for six months. Google rejected requests from both claimants to have search results pertaining to their convictions erased from the search engine.
Both NT1 and NT2 made their claims pursuant to the 2014 ruling made in Google Spain, in which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found that the privacy rights granted under the EU Data Protection Directive and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights created a ‘right to be forgotten,’ and that individuals may request irrelevant data relating to them be removed. This decision requires that a fair balance be maintained between fundamental rights and interests. Therefore, Google and similar companies may reject such requests on the grounds that freedom of information outweighs an individual’s right to privacy.
NT1 was deemed to not be entitled to have his data delisted. Since leaving prison, he had remained in a similar business and therefore the information retained sufficient relevance in that it minimises the risk that he will continue mislead as he had in the past. In addition, he had not admitted his guilt nor was he seen to have shown any remorse over his previous actions.
In contrast, NT2 had acknowledged his guilt and conveyed genuine remorse, and the Court was of the view that there was no risk of any repetition as he now worked in a different area of business and his past offences were of little, if any, relevance to anybody’s assessment of his suitability to engage in relevant business activity now. The Court ruled that the information had become out of date, irrelevant and of no sufficient legitimate interest to users of Google, and therefore there were no grounds to justify its continued availability.
Click here for full judgement.