On 9th August 2019: Ms Tasnim Shawkat, WCC’s “Director of Law” (another unregulated fancy job title, without any clout) decided that she could not let F know what she would like to discuss to resolve the long standing impasse. She withdrew her assistance, leaving her “legal team” to cope with the case She gave up.
Whilst waiting for RBKC’s response to his 9th August 2019 Request for a copy of RBKC’s response to 2nd part of F’s Amendment, due by 10th December, 2019, on 3rd December 2019, Dr Fatima Zohra chimed in, offering a review of F’s concerns. Yet another person assuming to have the full legal knowledge of how to deal with such a rare occurrence. As it turned out, UNIQUE event of sharing person’s HIV+ status with another without consent. Without a PRECEDENT and therefore NO legal guidance on the subject.
To conduct an impartial review, she should have asked whether RBKC have complied, as they were legally obliged to do, with ICO’s “Data Sharing Code of Practice“, where section 4 is crystal clear about “Data sharing and the law.”
It would be absurd beyond belief to think that Dr Zohra is NOT aware of this requirement and not fully familiar with all legislation governing Data Sharing with others. If she does not, what is she doing in the post of a “Data Protection Officer”?
It is evident that her knowledge required above, is sadly missing. She does not even understand the basic principles of CONFIDENTIALITY. Otherwise, her initial response should have been that F’s information is deemed to be CONFIDENTIAL and handling of it must be treated as such. That would have put the matter in a different light and treated as addressed elsewhere.
Instead, in her confused and confusing missive reiterated that paragraph 32 of the DPA permitted RBKC to disclose F’s HIV+ status to the LGO.
In a customary RBKC ingrained belligerent arrogance avoided replying to F’s requests for a copy of documentary evidence that RBKC replied, as they were legally obliged to do by paragraph 10-(3)-(a) or (b), to the 2nd part of F’s May 2010 Amendment to his Information sharing Agreement. This dealt with instructions for RBKC to delete ALL HIV relevant information from F’s file.
Dr Zohra expertly glossed over events the confused events IN 2000 and before 2010.
Sadly, her approach still confirms the long standing findings by the Law Commissions in 2014, that local authorities have poor understanding of data protection legislation; due to poor training and lack of proper legal advice.
She wholeheartedly forgot that 17 pages of Mr Sionville’s CONFIDENTIAL Income Tax Rebate information was also disclosed to the LGO. Why on Earth was this necessary, when he had already left F’s employment BEFORE the assessment.
F promptly replied on the same day, drawing Dr Zohra’ attention to the fact that HIV relevant information is subject to NHS STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS.
Therefore, Dr Zohra’s arguments do not hold water and her “Remedies” are nothing but a way of wriggling out of a serious “breach of Confidentiality”, as para 35(2) is irrelevant.
It must be remembered, that disclosure of F;s medical condition is a violation of Article 8 of Human Right Act, which Dr Zohra carefully avoids in her “review”.