Late last night, Bennison was having one of his wild rants, where he said the following:
You are not having it because you cannot be trusted with personal data.
The court made a finding of fact you committed a “technical breach” of the Data Protection Act, and for those less informed, the Information Commissioner investigated you and also made a finding you committed a breach of the Data Protection Act and they made a written statement confirming this.
Because of your untrustworthy character, you are not being entrusted with anyone’s personal data.Bennison's rant on his Bailiff Help Forum
Funny he should say this, over six months after a High Court Judge said the exact opposite. As we have seen with Nominet, Bennison refuses to accept a ruling against him and always wants another bite of the cherry. In the case of Nominet, this bite landed him with a £26,000 costs order and, potentially, a bankruptcy.
At the time he issued proceedings against Nominet, he also issued them against another party, who had allegedly breached Section 10 of the DPA. This court hearing, took place just a few days after the Nominet hearing, and also ended in a similar note: Bennison lost and was ordered to pay costs. This costs order is what this post of his referred to when he said “I paid her…”
Because this other party was an individual and not legally represented in this case, the costs were considerable lower. The party in question posted details of those proceedings on this website shortly after that hearing, as seen below.
Jason Bennison’s complaint was purely in relation to Section 10 of the Data Protection Act and its specific reference to ‘personal data’ and ‘processing’ of his ‘personal data’. It should first be mentioned that his drafting skills are truly dreadful and embarrassingly so. The witness statement (over 100 pages) resembled something put together by a 15 year old. The witness statement was also only in draft form and it was neither signed….or dated.
He wanted an order stopping his personal data being processed. This was a most odd application indeed because; in March 2017 (without approaching me first) he made a complaint to the ICO about the very same thing (processing of his personal data etc).
The ICO made it very clear that if Mr Bennison had a complaint about an internet post where his name may be mentioned, that HE would need to approach that particular website’s Data Controller to seek THEIR assistance with it’s removal etc. As such, the ICO confirmed that I could only be held responsible for posts made on a website that I am Data Controller of…..namely, my own website introduced around 10 years ago. There had at one time been one mention of his name on my website but that comment (and indeed the entire webpage) had been removed from my site months earlier.
Oddly, that comment (which I will refer to shortly) could not possibly have been of any concern to Mr Bennison given that in 2016, he dedicated an entire thread on his Bailiff Help Forum to that one reference publicising it even further!!
The ICO informed me that I should respond to Mr Bennison’s complaint within a period of 21 days. Due to very exceptional circumstances, (outlined in detail to the ICO), I was not able to respond within the 21 day period. Instead, my response was provided on day 24. Knowing the reason for this slight delay, the ICO were very sympathetic and confirmed that although there may have ‘technically’ been a breach under Section 10, that breach would have only been in relation to providing a response slightly late and NOT in relation to any other issue. The ICO stated that no action was to be taken and the case closed.
Mr Bennison did not appeal the ICO decision and instead, six months later and again, without any prior notice to me, Bennison took the identical complaint to court…and this time as an emergency injunction!!! Where was the emergency?
The hearing was very short and the Judge had to again explain to Mr Bennison that his theory about Section 10 and a so called ‘breach’ was completely wrong and that if a breach had occurred, it would have only been in relation to a response being made on day 24……instead of day 21. The Judge very patiently outlined how Mr Bennison was misreading the Data Protection Act and correspondence from the ICO.
Like a very obsessional habit, Mr Bennison kept repeating over and over again, that he did not want his name on the internet. The Judge informed him that he does not have ownership of his own name. It was as simple as that. His name was in the public domain.
It then came down to the very difficult task of trying hard to decipher from Mr Bennison what he meant by his ‘personal data’ and of ‘processing’ (of his personal data). This was not an easy task. I will address this important part later on.
Before addressing the difficult task that the Judge and I had in trying to decipher from Mr Bennison what he meant by his ‘personal data’ and of ‘processing’ (of his personal data), it is important to mention something very important.
During the hearing, I made the court aware of my willingness to assist in any way that I could to remove any internet posts that I may have made at any time about Mr Bennison on websites that I am not the Data Controller of. As evidence of my willingness to assist, I exhibited a copy of correspondence that I had sent to one particular forum and their response (that they do not delete posts and would not consent to a request from me).
I stressed that the problem that I had was that Mr Bennison had NEVER approached me personally to request my assistance with the removal of any SPECIFIC post. He was informed by the court that he would need to identify a SPECIFIC post and outline the REASON WHY he wished it to be removed.
It needs to be stressed that if Mr Bennison (or anybody else for that matter) considered that an internet post contained a comment that they believed to be defamatory, that person cannot make a complaint to the court after a period of 12 months (from the date of the internet post). This is particularly important in relation to posts made on the Quatloos and Pepipoo forum (which are now time barred).Shirley
As can be seen above, he started by submitting a complaint to the ICO which basically failed, with the ICO deciding that a data controller can only be responsible for posts made on THEIR OWN website. Where the DPA is concerned, the ICO is the proper authority to complain to, and its remit, as well as that of the DPA, have been discussed quite extensively on the Section 10 of the DPA post. Not satisfied with the response, he decided to take the matter to the High Court, just as he did with Nominet, after they ruled against his complaint regarding an abusive domain registration.
On both occasions, Bennison applied for an emergency injunction against the parties involved as well as issuing a claim for a round figure plucked out of thin air. There were no grounds for the injunction applications in either case, nor any reason to make an emergency application, nor were there any grounds for the spurious claims he issued. Bennison seems to think that going to the High Court is the way to override the decision of any authority, as can be seen with his obsession with the Strand.
He’s still not satisfied with the Court’s decision, as can be seen by his recent rants and rambles, and he still thinks he can make the same points that a court has already ruled on, at his expense. His total lack of understanding and knowledge of the legal system was clearly shown when he issued such spurious claims and submitted witness statements that were fully of irrelevant, and even laughable, content.