Jack Michael Dixon as a policeman Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Jack Michael Dixon as a policeman - Coursework Example The misuse of personal data falls under the ambit of Data Protection Act 1984. On violation of mentioned act, the trial court awarded penalty of 500 GBP each on count-1 and count-2 along with the cost of suit amounting to 1,750 GBP. Q.2. Explain in your own words the legal issue in the case? Answer: Jack Michael Dixon was a police constable in the Nottingham police constabulary who misused personal data on the computers of the National Police. The misuse occurred in the sense that he was blamed for performing contrary to prescribed task enshrined in the relevant entry register. This invokes s5 (2) (b) (3) and (5) of Data Protection Act 1984. Accordingly he was found guilty on two counts by the trial court. For the initial offence he was convicted to an attempt and for the second time he was convicted to full offence. In each count the court of competent jurisdiction found him guilty and for each offence awarded him penalty of 500 GBP each plus cost of suit incurred thereon i.e. 1,750 GBP. Q.3. what technique of statutory interpretations, presumption and / or rule of language did Lord Goff employee in this case? Give reasons for your answer. Answer: The defendant Dixon on appeal was exonerated by the Court of Appeal. The prosecution against the judgment of the trial court files an appeal to Lordship’s House to reconsider the matter of exoneration. ... The defendant plea was that enquires made by him was legal. However, incidentally the enquired data was belonging to the Best Investigation Ltd. The trial court did not accept the plea and fined Dixon. The prosecution was of the view that displaying data on screen or make a print of it amounts to leakage the information to some other person which is in violation of section 5(2) (b).The concerned court accepted the stance of the prosecution and sentenced the said accused. Since the word ‘use’ has no specific meaning in terms of relevant act, therefore, it should be treated a commonly used word. The said word did not confine someone to perform something specific. The word used with reference to data amounts to information recorded in a computer readable format i.e. on the screen or to make a print out of it. But as per the interpretation of law, a police officer who have an access to his personal data or to the data of his chief, if knowingly / intentionally pass on the in formation to another person for an improper use liable to punish under the said Act. Q.4. To what aids to statutory interpretation did Lord Goff refer? Your answer should indicate whether such aids are â€Å"intrinsic† or â€Å"extrinsic†. Answer: In accordance with the interpretation of Lord Goff the similar principles are applicable in the disclosing of information being no specific meaning of the word ‘disclose’ available in the referred Act as in the case of defining the word ‘use’. In view the said Lord information recorded in a computer readable format cannot be disclosed or pass on to others for its use other than the prescribed purposes. However, the section 1(9) put no bar as far