I have to be very basic in the info i give for legal reasons but wonder if i can get some advise

Person A, Purchases a Holiday in Person A's Name. Person A Invites Person B to join the Holiday.

Can a Council Contact the Holiday company and request booking info who was on the list if they wanted to check out person B where Person A is not subject of any involvement / investigations.

can the council / under data protection obtain this info legally?

Person B is under investigation by council and Person A is not in any way linked to this other then the invite to come on Holiday.

No because the holiday is booked by person A and I assume paid for by person A...its merely a gift to person B

Hi Andy,

Not sure if you understood.

This is not a benefit case.

its person B should not have been there (school term time) and the council have obtained the booking info from the holiday company to use in a case.

Person A was the lead booker and paid in full using Person A Debit Card.

Person B was then listed as a guest on my booking.

The Holiday company have released info which i think may be in breach of DPA and therefore the evidence obtained cannot be used for evidence.

parent/ child yes they can same family the kid should be in school..

You say in brackets school term time.

Why?

I'll be short, is a criminal act going to take place like shouldn't be in an area due to restraining order or the like?

A young person going on holiday without permission from guardians permission etc etc

The Holiday company have released info which i think may be in breach of DPA and therefore the evidence obtained cannot be used for evidence.

In the USA there is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" concept : if a search was unlawful the evidence resulting from it is inadmissible (unless they find a provision to shoe-horn it in such as 'inevitable discovery').

It isn't quite that simple in England & Wales.

A court might not allow it, or might choose to do so.

The court has wide latitude in its discretion.

If, as I suspect, this is about the council prosecuting for a child taken on holiday in school term time then in general the Data Protection Act exemption for criminal prosecution applies.

Councils are the prosecuting authority for unauthorised non-attendance at school so can ask for any information which they need for the prosecution of offenders and the data holder who discloses it will normally not have breached the Data Protection Act because of the exemption in s29 of the Act.

The fact that the full booking might include information about people (ie you) who the council did not prosecute is unlikely to mean the disclosure of what the council requested was illegal or not covered by the exemption.

After all, when police or council investigators are seeking information they may not know until they have got it how relevant it is.

OK ill explain more

Brian who books the holiday invites Steve and his son Richard on Holiday in school term time.

Steve was taken to court by the council for taking his son Richard out of school.

at the trial there was more dates then just the holiday being questioned and all but the holiday was due to sickness.

Steve stood up in court and then said my son was ill during the dates being questioned. no mention of holiday at all by anyone.

Steve was found not guilty of the offence.

Richard, Steves son goes to school and tells everyone about the holiday after the trial and this gets back to the council of which then contact the holiday company to which Brian was the head booker and paid for this holiday.

The council obtained the dates for which Richard and Steve went on Holiday.

Council then pass this info from the holiday company and then ask the Police to investigate a case of Perjury for which Steve is then called in under caution / interview to which he says no comment.

So what i am getting at, could the evidence obtained by the council be obtained illegally

You've confirmed my guess that this was about unauthorised absence from school.

It was then compounded by the parents (allegedly) having committed perjury when giving evidence in court.

So the Council sought information to help them discover whether there had been perjury and to aid a prosecution for perjury. Entirely legal.

If you are thinking that "Steve" might escape a perjury charge because the evidence was obtained illegally forget it.

That defence is going nowhere.

The evidence wasn't obtained illegally.

DPA allows Council to obtain evidence for use in a legal case.

Brian's art.8 Convention Rights might have been violated by the L A in this case, however, if there is a suspicion that Steve's acquittal is tainted by fraud, then an investigation by the L A for the purpose of prevention of crime will be deemed valid.

It's a case of, what was Steve charged with, the allegations, and what response and evidence did Steve give in court against those allegations?

It may well be the case that Steve was not under a legal duty to disclose the holiday, and art.8 does apply to both him and his son's private life also!

Haunter

. Entirely legal. If you are thinking that "Steve" might escape a perjury charge because the evidence was obtained illegally forget it. That defence is going nowhere. The evidence wasn't obtained illegally.

Even if it was unlawfully obtained that breach isn't so great that a court would likely disallow it being introduced in evidence when it was a clear indication of perjury.

Unsurprisingly, the court's don't look favourably on perjury!

If charged, the CPS will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Steve committed perjury, that he was under a legal duty to disclose the holiday in the criminal proceedings, and that his non-disclosure was material to the outcome of the trial.

Sounds like the L A are on your friend's back, have they brought any care proceedings in respect of his son?

Haunter

The prosecution don't have to show there was a legal duty to disclose the holiday.

"Brian" had a legal duty not to make false statements in court, whether about the holiday or anything else.

Apparently he lied.

Er, no, Brian was obligated only to respond to the allegations made, his and his son's art.8 Convention Rights were fully engaged at the trial, same as all person's are.

If the L A did not challenge Brian on any particular matter, then he was not committing any wrong by not talking about his and his family's private life.

The CPS will need to show that Brian was under a legal duty to disclose the holiday, because the CPS will have to prove that there was an intention by Brian to interfere with the administration of justice by means of material non-disclosure on his (Brian's) part.

UK26, what, exactly, is happening on the L A's case against Steve right now please?

Haunter

Brian was not contacted by the council. The council contacted the holiday company

Police are due to pass to the CPS the evidence for perjury

Has Brian been formally charged with the offence of perjury?

Sorry, I meant Steve.

By the way, how old is Steve's son?

Early days. I don;t want to say much more about the case. I have the info i needed which is there is no DPA breach.

Er, no, Brian was obligated only to respond to the allegations made, his and his son's art.8 Convention Rights were fully engaged at the trial, same as all person's are.

Er yes actually. "Steve" (not Brian) told the court (according to OP) that son was sick when he was actually on holiday. On the face of it that's perjury (but acknowledging we don't full details of what happened in the courtroom). All ECHR rights are "engaged" - they always are - but that doesn't mean they have any relevance to the particular case. Article 8 has no relevance to committing perjury in court.

Er, no, Brian was obligated only to respond to the allegations made, his and his son's art.8 Convention Rights were fully engaged at the trial, same as all person's are.

 

If the L A did not challenge Brian on any particular matter, then he was not committing any wrong by not talking about his and his family's private life.

 

The CPS will need to show that Brian was under a legal duty to disclose the holiday, because the CPS will have to prove that there was an intention by Brian to interfere with the administration of justice by means of material non-disclosure on his (Brian's) part.

 

Haunter

It is Steve facing the perjury allegation, not Brian, though?

Was Steve asked about all the dates?

Did he answer "Richard was ill" for all of them?

Non-disclosure would be being asked about the other dates, or not answering when asked about the holiday dates.

If Steve was asked in court about "all the dates", and said "ill" and deliberately didn't qualify his answer for the holiday dates, knowing Richard wasn't ill on those dates : that is perjury rather than non-disclosure.

Steve ought to get himself professional representation through public funding.

It may be the case that the CPS consider there is insufficient evidence to secure a conviction on the charge of perjury.

We don't know what questions were put to Steve when he was under oath in the witness box, and we don't know what answers he gave orally in evidence in response to those questions, but as you can now see, there is no DPA breach by the L A.

A charge of perjury is a very serious offence and if convicted, Steve will face a prison sentence, so he had better get professional defence solicitor on board and start looking at what his defence is, if he has one.

Haunter

Yeah I know I got the name wrong, silly me, but a simple mistake and no harm done!

I'm not saying art.8 has any bearing on perjury, all Convention Rights are relevant in all cases, civil and criminal, it's the violation of these fundamental rights that must be necessary in accordance with the prescribed law is the point I am making.

Haunter

Article 8 is, however, a qualified right.....

Article 5 isn't qualified per se, but is 'limited' by the provisions within Art. 5 : if convicted Steve can't use Article 5 to avoid prison....

Well all Convention Rights are entrenched in the ECHR, but the person is not entitled to hide behind them so as to escape the law for any wrong he may have done.

We don't have the details of the trial, and so it is extremely difficult, impossible, to give any advice to UK26 as to whether his friend Steve committed perjury or not, but I believe we have established for him that there is no DPA breach.

Haunter

Retitled and moved to general legal forum

There was a ruling in the High Court last year where the court held that a father who took his daughter on holiday during term time had not broken any law, and the fine of £120 imposed upon him was overruled and quashed (originally the fine was £60).

In this appeal case before the High Court, the court said there was no evidence before it to prove that the child did not attend school regularly.

So, in the case of Steve here, it appears he did not break any law by taking his child on holiday during term time, therefore, during the trial the fact that he did take his child on holiday but not talk about it in the proceedings has absolutely no bearing on his acquittal, his child was off school sick on a number of occasions, this is perfectly legal, Steve took his child on holiday during term time, again, this is perfectly legal.

Even if the L A/CPS can prove that Steve lied and said “No, we didn’t go on holiday”, it will change nothing in respect of his acquittal, because the law is that the child must attend school regularly, and Steve and his family’s art.8 Convention Rights provide protection for their privacy, home life and correspondence, meaning that their holiday, term time or not, is private and of no business whatsoever of the L A.

No law has been broken here, a minor lie may have been told by Steve, but that lie, if it was a lie, is immaterial to the L A’s case at the trial.

s.1(6) of the Perjury Act 1911 provides:

“The question whether a statement on which perjury is assigned was material is a question of law to be determined by the court of trial”.

Any lie or false statement alleged must be proven to have been intended to interfere with the due administration of justice, taking his child on holiday and allegedly denying this under oath does not change the acquittal decision, it is immaterial to the decision of the court to acquit Steve, because taking his child on holiday during term time without the school’s consent is not illegal.

The gist of this case is that the L A accused Steve of keeping his child off school without valid reason, this was proven to be untrue at the trial and Steve was acquitted.

The L A are now saying, after discovering evidence after that trial, that Steve unlawfully took his child on holiday during term time and lied at the trial by saying his child was off sick for that particular 1 or 2 weeks, this has no bearing on the acquittal decision, because no doubt Steve must have produce medical evidence from the family GP confirming the ill health of his child being the reason why he was not at school.

Taking your child on holiday during term time is not illegal in the UK, regular attendance at school is the criteria of law that a parent must satisfy, so even if Steve did lie under oath and deny the holiday, it is a minor lie that has not interfered with the court’s decision to acquit him of any wrongdoing.

In this case here, if the CPS go ahead with a prosecution, then it will need to prove that Steve’s alleged lie caused the court to make a decision in his favour that it otherwise would not have done so if the alleged lie had not been said. That is what perjury is.

Again, without the full details/circumstances of the previous proceedings, and what the precise allegation is now made against Steve, it is quite difficult to say if he has a defence or not against the allegation/charge.

I do hope though that the above information will help Steve, but he should get himself professional representation as soon as possible from experienced criminal defence solicitors.

Haunter.