Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what complaints procedure is open to members of the public if they wish to complain that (a) his Department’s Data Protection Officer and (b) any staff of his Department is in breach of the Civil Service Code; how many complaints have been made against staff of his Department for breaches of the Civil Service Code in each of the last two years; when, how and by whom those staff have been investigated; and what outcomes of those investigations have been recorded.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The Attorney General’s Office publishes its complaints procedure, which is open to members of the public online here. There have been no recorded complaints against AGO staff for breaching the Civil Service Code in the last 2 years.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what recruitment process his Department followed when appointing its Data Protection Officer (DPO); how that position was advertised; how many candidates applied for that post; what criteria were used to assess the candidates' (i) professional qualities and expert knowledge of data protection law and practices and (ii) their ability to fulfil the tasks referred to in Article 39 of the General Data Protection Regulation; who was appointed as DPO for his Department; when and where his Department has published its DPO's contact details; and what lines of reporting exist within his Department in respect of its DPO.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The Attorney General’s Office shares its Data Protection Officer with the Government Legal Department (GLD) and HM Crime Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI). In line with Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Guidance, the role of DPO can be taken by existing Civil Servants. In this instance the DPO function was added to that of the existing roles of Departmental Records Officer and FOI/DPA co-ordinator in the GLD.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, if he will publish the job titles and grades of officials in his Department that (a) have been and (b) are currently responsible for ensuring that communications in relation to Jon Venables are compliant with the injunction granted by the Family Division on 22 June 2001.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The Attorney General’s Office Legal and Communications teams deal with a range of cases. All staff are aware of the terms of this injunction and the need to ensure that any communications comply with those terms.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division of 22 June 2001 in relation to Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what policies and procedures his Department has put in place to ensure that officials responsible for authorising the release of information relating to Jon Venables are compliant with that injunction.
Answered by Robert Buckland
Through staff training and knowledge management, the Attorney General’s Office has policies in place to ensure compliance with all anonymity orders, including those related to Jon Venables and Robert Thompson.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what information his Department holds on the publication of the location of Jon Venables in open court (a) by and (b) on behalf of his Department.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The Attorney General’s Office does not hold transcripts of previous court proceedings relating to the original granting of this injunction or subsequent applications relating to it. Any publication by the media of anything said in open court must comply with the terms of the injunction.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, what information about the whereabouts of Jon Venables who was convicted of the murder of James Bulger in 1993 has been released by his Department to the media.
Answered by Robert Buckland
The Attorney General’s Office has complied with the terms of the court injunction that prohibits the publication of information purporting to identify this individual or his past, present or future whereabouts.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division of 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what applications to vary that decision have been made and on behalf of whom; how such applications were funded; and what grounds were given in support of each such application.
Answered by Geoffrey Cox
In 2010, Jon Venables was arrested and charged, under his new identity, with offences relating to the viewing of child pornography. On 21 June 2010, in the context of those criminal proceedings, Mr Justice Bean amended the Injunction so as to prohibit the publication of information revealed in proceedings in open court, insofar as such information would be likely to lead to the identification of (a) Venables’ then-current name; (b) the address at which he was living immediately before his recall to prison in February 2010; (c) the location at which he was, at that time, being held in custody; or (d) his then-current appearance.
Those amendments resulted from an application by Counsel for Jon Venables on the basis that revealing such information would be likely to lead to the identification of Jon Venables. I am unable to say how this application was funded because the variation was sought by a third party
At a hearing at the Central Criminal Court on 23 July 2010 Mr Justice Bean varied the order, on the application of media organisations, to permit disclosure of the county in which Venables was living before his recall to custody. The purpose of this was to enable identification of the relevant police force and probation service involved in his supervision. I am unable to say how this application was funded because the variation was not sought by this office. At the same time, an application by News Group and Mirror Group Newspapers, who opposed the continued prohibition of the publication of Jon Venables’ new name, was heard and rejected.
On 31 August 2012, on the application of the Secretary of State for Justice, the High Court amended the terms of the Injunction. This application would have been funded by central government. The amendment was made to ensure it prohibited any publication of a person purporting to be identified or depicted as Venables or Thompson.
On 7 February 2018, Venables was sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment for three offences of making indecent photographs of children and one offence of possession of a paedophile manual. On 7 February, on the application of Jon Venables, Mr Justice Edis amended the Injunction to permit reporting of information heard in public at the hearing, though the amendments were such that the Injunction continues to protect the new identity and appearance of Venables and certain information which might be used to identify him. I am unable to say how this application was funded beause the varation was not sought by this office
There is an application currently before the Family Court brought by Mr Ralph Stephen Bulger and Mr James Patrick Bulger to vary the Injunction. Various grounds have been provided in support of this application, and it is anticipated these grounds will be finalised in the applicants’ written submissions required to be filed in this case by 23 November 2018. I am unable to say how this application is funded because the variation is not sought by this office.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division of 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, how many allegations for breach of that injunction have been received by his Department; on what dates and on behalf of whom such allegations were received; how communication of such allegations was funded; and what grounds were given in support of each such allegation.
Answered by Geoffrey Cox
Year | Number of referrals for alleged breaches of the order |
2018 | 25 |
2017 | 12 |
2016 | 1 |
2015 | 1 |
2014 | 2 |
2013 | 32 |
2012 | 0 |
2011 | 1 |
2010 | 1 |
2009-2003 | 0 |
2002 | 1 |
2001 | 1 |
Allegations about breaches of the injunction protecting the identities of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson can be received from anybody, including members of the public, employers and law enforcement agencies. We are not aware of how they are funded if they are. Referrals are most often made on the basis that the injunction has been breached by the sharing of prohibited images or information purporting to identify Venables or his whereabouts.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division on 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what costs were incurred by his and other government departments in respect of matters relating to that injunction, including any amounts paid by way of the fees of any counsel and other disbursements.
Answered by Geoffrey Cox
This question refers to costs incurred over a considerable period of time. The Government Legal Department (‘GLD’) has carried out a reasonable and proportionate interrogation of its digital records and has ascertained that the following costs have been incurred (all figures given exclude VAT):
(1) On matters relating to applications to vary the Injunction:
(2) On matters relating to breaches of the Injunction:
(3) On matters relating to the application of the Secretary of State for Justice in 2012 to vary the Injunction:
These figures do not include any internal costs incurred by individual government departments in terms of time spent by their officials in matters relating to the Injunction.
Asked by: George Howarth (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Attorney General:
To ask the Attorney General, with reference to the injunction granted by the Family Division on 22 June 2001 in respect of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, what data security policies and procedures apply to his and other government departments and all counsel instructed in connection with that injunction, including communicating information by email; and what role his Department's Data Protection Officer and the data protection officers of other government departments play in instructing counsel in regard to data protection.
Answered by Geoffrey Cox
The Attorney General’s Office and the Government Legal Department are bound by statutory obligations and act in accordance with publicly available policies on the gov.uk website, as well as the Subject Access Code of Practice published by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is available here.
The Attorney General’s guidelines on information security and government work that are followed by external counsel doing government work are available here.
Guidance for handling protectively marked material that is followed by external counsel is available here.
The Attorney General’s Office also has an internal Office Security Policy which is not published, because it contains very specific security information about the office necessary to protect information and staff which it would not be appropriate to publish.
External counsel that do government work are data controllers in their own right with all the attendant responsibilities that entails. They are members of a professionally regulated body and formally undertake to maintain the integrity of the data that they handle.