Background
Yair Cohen represented TJM, a Royal Marine Officer, who faced defamatory allegations from West Yorkshire Police. His former partner accused him of controlling and coercive behaviour. These allegations, entirely unsubstantiated and made as part of a custody battle, were disclosed by the police to TJM’s employer before any formal investigation or charges. The police’s email included confidential information from family court proceedings, leading to significant damage to TJM’s reputation and employment prospects despite his complete innocence..
Key issues: defamation, breach of privacy and breach of personal data
The case involved suing the police for defamation, breach of privacy, and breach of personal data. The email which was sent by a police officer to TJM’s employer in the Royal Marine, implied TJM’s guilt, violating his privacy and breaching GDPR principles by disclosing confidential information from family court proceedings.
Outcome
The court found the police’s actions to be defamatory, with the email constituting defamation under Chase Level 1.
What is Chase Levels? Chase levels determine the seriousness of defamatory statements: Chase Level 1 implies the person is guilty, Chase Level 2 implies reasonable grounds to suspect the person, and Chase Level 3 implies grounds to investigate whether the person is guilty.
In this case, the police’s email suggested TJM’s guilt (Chase Level 1). Additionally, the court recognised breaches of privacy due to the unwarranted disclosure of family court details and GDPR breaches regarding the handling of personal data. The case concluded with the police paying substantial damages to TJM.
Significance of the case of TJM v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
The significance of the case of TJM v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police is that this case sends a strong message to government bodies, including the police, and to individuals who believe they have been defamed by authorities such as the police, local authorities, and social services. It emphasises that they can sue for defamation. It highlights that the powers of the police and other public service bodies are not unlimited and that they need to be reminded of this fact periodically.
Moreover, it reinforces the need for proper legal and ethical protocols in handling personal information and allegations. Government bodies must respect individuals’ privacy and data protection rights, ensuring that unsubstantiated allegations are not prematurely or improperly disclosed. The decision also encourages individuals who have been wrongfully defamed to seek legal redress, knowing that substantial damages can be awarded for such misconduct.
This is not the first case where Cohen Davis successfully sue the police for defamation. The case of case Selvaratnam Suresh against the Metropolitan Police was an earlier case represented by Yair Cohen where the police was found to have defamed a suspect. The case of TJM, however, serves as a cautionary tale for public authorities to adhere strictly to the law, maintain the confidentiality of personal data, and avoid defamation to prevent significant legal and financial repercussions.
Lessons learned from the case
The police must not publicly disclose that someone is under investigation. Furthermore, there is no right or duty for the police to inform employers about such matters. Any such defamation can result in legal action and a substantial payout. This case reinforces the need for authorities to follow proper protocols and protect individuals’ privacy and reputational rights. Yair acted for his client on a no win no fee basis.
Mail Online:
Brought to you by Mail Online