The High Court allowed Alan Shatter’s appeal against a Circuit Court ruling that had upheld the Data Protection Commissioner’s decision concerning information about Michael Wallace. The High Court found that Shatter had standing to appeal, that the Commissioner’s procedure contained a fundamental flaw, and that the Commissioner had made serious errors in applying the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003.
The complaint followed remarks Shatter made on RTÉ’s Prime Time programme on 16 May 2013. He said Wallace had been stopped while using a mobile phone and had been warned rather than issued a fixed charge notice and penalty points. Wallace complained to the Commissioner.
In a decision dated 6 May 2014, the Commissioner concluded that Shatter was a data controller and had contravened the Acts by further processing Wallace’s personal data incompatibly with the purpose for which it was obtained. The Circuit Court dismissed Shatter’s appeal, finding both that he lacked standing and, separately, that the Commissioner had followed fair procedures and had not made a serious or significant error.
The High Court rejected the standing objection. It found that the Commissioner’s decision could affect Shatter’s good name and reputation personally, even though the conduct at issue occurred while he was Minister for Justice and Equality.
The judge said statements in the Commissioner’s investigation notice and a public media comment appeared to prejudge whether the Acts applied, an issue Shatter had raised from the outset. But Shatter had not sought the Commissioner’s recusal, so the judge held that he could not rely on that aspect of the appeal.
The court separately found a fundamental procedural flaw. The Commissioner had been shown an internal Garda email dated 11 January 2013, but Shatter was not given a copy or an opportunity to make submissions about it. The judge said the email was central evidence in the complaint.
The court also concluded there was no evidence that the email met the statutory definition of automated or manual data. It found the Commissioner had not established that Shatter controlled the contents of the email, as required for data-controller status. The judge therefore considered the finding that Shatter was a data controller, including jointly with the Garda Commissioner, to be erroneous.
The High Court held that the Circuit Court had erred on standing, fair procedures and application of the Acts, and allowed the appeal. The judgment does not set out a separate substitute decision on the complaint or further orders beyond allowing the appeal.