When Data protection doesn’t work

Malta Independent Wednesday, 8 August 2012, 00:00 Last update: about 15 years ago

Our Data Protection Act gives us the following preamble: To make provision for the protection of individuals against the violation of their privacy by the processing of personal data and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto

Fine words but in practice what do they mean? The whole scope of the exercise of data protection is simply that of the protection of our privacy. This is why the law not only creates the preamble of data protection but indicates that our various authorities are to nominate a controller of personal data with the specific role to determine the purposes and means of the processing of personal data. These are all fine words. More so when read with the further adjuct that the controller is to ensure that personal data is processed fairly and lawfully and personal data is always processed in accordance with good practice (amongst other requirements).

However, this system has given rise to a number of abuses which I believe run directly contrary to the spirit and intention of the law itself. Foremost amongst these is the problem we are faced as practitioners in the field of law in obtaining copies of police reports. I refer in particular to the situation regarding traffic accidents.

When there is a traffic accident it is the norm for the relative on-site report to be prepared by wardens. Where, however, one of the drivers, passengers or passers-by suffers an injury the Police are called as is required by law. The police then prepare the relative motor accident report.

On more than one occasion the drivers concerned have found difficulty in obtaining a copy of the relative report on the basis of the protection required under the Data Protection Act. This is, in my opinion, ridiculous. The reasoning that has been put forward is that the Police are not empowered to give a copy of the report to the drivers concerned since the report contains the private details including addresses and telephone numbers of all the drivers and witnesses and thus there may be an abuse by one of the drivers. The fear is that one of the drivers might call the other driver and verbal mayhem may ensue. This is incorrect and unfair on the genuine individual. What makes matters worse is that when an insurance company asks for the relative report, this is freely forwarded. This is known in colloquial terms as passing the buck. With the report in the hands of the insurers, the Police can quite simply state that it is up to the insurer to pass the report onto its insured if it so wishes! How puerile.

It is fairly obvious that there is no harm in the police passing a copy of the report to the drivers concerned. In truth I feel that the police are obliged to pass on this report to the drivers concerned since the report is of interest directly to the drivers. The fear of verbal (or other) abuse is a matter for the police to handle in a different scenario and context. I appreciate the good intentions of trying to avoid problems but hiding behind the veil of the Data Protection Act is not correct or fair. The report and contents thereof should be available to the drivers and this purely to allow them to seek redress according to law with their insurers or lawyer.

The names and addresses of the drivers concerned are vital information which is to be made available to all concerned. There can be no valid reason denying this information to drivers involved in an accident.

Yu Yongding is a former member of the monetary policy committee of the Peoples’ Bank of China and former Director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of World Economics and Politics.