MR JUSTICE WARBY
Approved Judgment
NT1 & NT2 v Google LLC
were other links, including some to information on a parliamentary website. NT1 was
released on licence after serving half his sentence in custody. The sentence came to an
end in the early 21st century. Some years later it became a “spent” conviction, a term I
shall explain. The reports remained online, and links continued to be returned by
Google Search. In due course, NT1 asked Google to remove such links.
6.
His first “de-listing” request was submitted to Google on 28 June 2014. It asked for
the removal of six links. Google replied on 7 October 2014, agreeing to block one
link, but declining to block any of the other five. NT1 asked Google to reconsider, but
it stood by its position. On 26 January 2015, NT1’s solicitors wrote to Google
requiring them to cease processing links to two media reports. In April 2015, Google
replied with a refusal. On 2 October 2015, NT1 brought these proceedings, seeking
orders for the blocking and/or erasure of links to the two media reports, an injunction
to prevent Google from continuing to return such links, and financial compensation.
In December 2017, NT1 expanded his claim to cover a third link, relating to a book
extract covering the same subject-matter, in similar terms.
7.
The facts of NT2’s case are quite separate from those of NT1. The only connections
between the two cases are that their factual contours have some similarities, they raise
similar issues of principle, and they have been tried one after the other with the same
representation. In the early 21st century, when he was in his forties, NT2 was involved
in a controversial business that was the subject of public opposition over its
environmental practices. Rather more than ten years ago he pleaded guilty to two
counts of conspiracy in connection with that business, and received a short custodial
sentence. The conviction and sentence were the subject of reports in the national and
local media at the time. NT2 served some six weeks in custody before being released
on licence. The sentence came to an end over ten years ago. The conviction became
“spent” several years ago. The original reports remained online, and links continued
to be returned by Google Search. NT2’s conviction and sentence have also been
mentioned in some more recent publications about other matters, two of them being
reports of interviews given by NT2. In due course, NT2 asked Google to remove such
links.
8.
The first de-listing request on NT2’s behalf was submitted by his solicitors on 14
April 2015. It related to eight links. Google responded promptly by email, on 23 April
2015. It declined to de-list, saying that the links in question “relate to matters of
substantial public interest to the public regarding [NT2’s] professional life”. On 24
June 2015, NT2’s solicitors sent a letter of claim and on 2 October 2015 they issued
these proceedings, claiming relief in respect of the same eight links as NT2 originally
complained of by NT2. In the course of the proceedings, complaints about a further
three links have been added to the claim. The claim advanced by NT2 therefore
relates to eleven items. NT2 claims the same heads of relief as NT1.
9.
The main issues in each case, stated broadly, are (1) whether the claimant is entitled
to have the links in question excluded from Google Search results either (a) because
one or more of them contain personal data relating to him which are inaccurate, or (b)
because for that and/or other reasons the continued listing of those links by Google
involves an unjustified interference with the claimant’s data protection and/or privacy
rights; and (2) if so, whether the claimant is also entitled to compensation for
continued listing between the time of the delisting request and judgment. Put another
way, the first question is whether the record needs correcting; the second question is