Memorandum submitted by the Information
Commissioner's Office
NOTE IN
RESPECT OF
OPERATION GLADE SENTENCING
FOR PARLIAMENTARY
SELECT COMMITTEE
The Judge who found himself having to sentence
the defendants in Operation GLADE, the case brought by the Metropolitan
Police, could be said to have had his hands tied. He found himself
having to deal with the implications of a previous sentence handed
out to one of the defendants in the matter linked to that that
was before him.
In Operation GLADE, four individuals were charged.
The lead (first) defendant was a former Metropolitan police civilian
control room employee whose home had been searched during the
course of the investigation into the misconduct offences which
ultimately led to the pleas to Data Protection Act offences. During
the course of that search a number of items of police property
were found for which that individual faced theft allegations.
This was the separate but connected trial that was referred to
in paragraph 6.7 of What Price Privacy?. The trial of that
matter took place prior to the Operation GLADE matter reaching
court and was dealt with by a different Judge. The sentencing
Judge in Operation GLADE had given an indication that he considered
it to be appropriate that the theft sentencing be reserved to
him to deal with at the conclusion of the misconduct/Data Protection
offences in order to tie everything together.
However the police civilian was sentenced by
the trial Judge after the theft case and received a suspended
prison sentence. It is important to note that suspended sentences
are not given lightly and are only used in exceptional
circumstances.
This meant that when all four defendants in
Operation GLADE came to be sentenced the Judge was effectively
precluded from giving the police civilian (who had pleaded guilty
to the misconduct offences and therefore could have been given
a custodial sentence) a sentence which would impact upon the previously
imposed suspended sentence. The ICO representative in court observing
the proceedings had suspicions that the former police civilian
worker had severe health problems which would make a custodial
sentence inappropriate.
As a result of having to deal with him in such
a fashion the Judge had to sentence the remaining three defendants
and their sentences had properly to reflect those given to the
first defendant. In addition, in the course of their mitigation,
the remaining three defendants advanced arguments in respect of
their impoverished circumstances. Case law exists in respect of
this which states that the level of fines must be linked to the
ability of the offender to pay, and therefore the Judge was unable
to levy significant financial penalties.
Whilst the identity of Stephen Whittamore is
a matter of public record in respect of his conviction at Blackfriars
Crown Court in Operation GLADE he was not named in What Price
Privacy as he had not been convicted in proceedings brought by
the Information Commissioner and it was felt that to name him
would have added nothing to the weight and substance of the report.
July 2007
| 
