MR JUSTICE WARBY
Approved Judgment
NT1 & NT2 v Google LLC
whether the data protection or privacy rights of these claimants extend to having
shameful episodes in their personal history eliminated from Google Search; thirdly,
there is the question of whether damages should be paid.
10.
Those are novel questions, which have never yet been considered in this Court. They
arise in a legal environment which is complex, and has developed over time. Many of
the legislative provisions date back to before the advent of the internet, and well
before the creation of ISEs. As often happens, statute has not kept pace with technical
developments. I have however had the benefit clear and helpful submissions not only
from Mr Tomlinson QC and Mr Barnes for NT1 and NT2, and Mr White QC and Ms
Evans QC for Google, but also from Ms Proops QC and Mr Paines on behalf of the
Information Commissioner (“ICO”), whom I allowed to intervene in the case: see the
Second PTR Judgment at [9-11]. During the trial process some of the complexities
that appeared to loom large at the outset have either disappeared, or receded into the
background. The trial has ended with quite a large measure of agreement as to the
principles I should apply, albeit not as to the answer I should reach by doing so. Mr
Tomlinson and Mr White both submitted that on the facts their respective clients’
cases were “overwhelming”. I find the matter more finely balanced.
11.
I have heard factual evidence from three witnesses. I heard from NT1 and NT2
themselves, and from Stephanie Caro, a “Legal Specialist” at Google. Ms Caro is not
a lawyer. Her primary responsibility is to assess or oversee the assessment of delisting requests. All three witnesses gave oral evidence and were cross-examined. Ms
Caro gave evidence once only. By agreement, the oral evidence she gave in the NT1
stands as her evidence in the NT2 action, in addition to her two witness statements in
that case. I also have two witness statements that were undisputed, and a wealth of
documentary evidence. There is, in particular, extensive historic documentation
relating to the case of NT1, to which detailed reference has been made.
12.
The conclusions I have reached are summarised at the end of this judgment: see [229],
[230]. What follows explains the legal context, the facts in outline, and the process of
reasoning by which I have arrived at my conclusions. This is inescapably a rather
lengthy process.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Ten key features
13.
It is convenient to begin by sketching in ten key features of the existing legal
framework, taking the enactments and the corresponding common law developments
in chronological order. They are:
(1) The European Convention on Human Rights, 1951 (“the Convention”), of which
the United Kingdom was a founding signatory. Of particular relevance are the
qualified rights to respect for private and family life (Article 8) and freedom of
expression (Article 10).
(2) The European Communities Act 1972 (“the 1972 Act”), by which the United
Kingdom Parliament decided that the Treaty of Rome (25 March 1957) and other
constitutional instruments of what was then the European Economic Community
should be given direct legal effect in the UK without further enactment. As a