*/
In a two part feature, Graham Cunningham looks at the new guidelines on Information Security; in part 1, he examines the guidelines regarding electronic devices.
There is good news; and there is bad news. The good news is that there are only two or three barristers on the ‘ICO list’. The bad news, in these harsh economic times, is that you could be spending a lot of your increasingly hard-earned cash on paying administrative penalties to the Government.
To what am I alluding? The following is a true story. A barrister went away on holiday, leaving her home in the care of two plumbers who were fitting a new boiler. She stressed the need for them to secure the premises and set the alarm when they had finished work. When she returned from holiday, her purse and laptop were missing.
Unfortunately, the laptop contained highly sensitive information about people she was representing and it had insufficient technical security to protect such information. This resulted - in this instance - in an undertaking given to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rather than a penalty (‘the list’). However, there is no guarantee that the ICO will continue to be satisfied with an undertaking. Just to put the matter in sobering perspective, the maximum penalty for the worst cases is currently £500,000, and the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF) has indicated that its policy does not automatically cover such penalties. In other words, you literally cannot afford to ignore this.
The basics
What do you need to know? Let me start with the basics:
The recommendations
All very interesting, you will say, but what do you actually have to do? Your Bar Council IT panel has drafted “Guidelines on Information Security” which is a splendid read if you have time. Since most of you don’t have the time, I will summarise its “Recommendations”:
Next month, information security for physical materials.
Graham Cunningham, Hardwicke Chambers, with contributions from Iain Mitchell QC, Clive Freedman and Jacqueline Reid of the Bar Council IT Panel
To what am I alluding? The following is a true story. A barrister went away on holiday, leaving her home in the care of two plumbers who were fitting a new boiler. She stressed the need for them to secure the premises and set the alarm when they had finished work. When she returned from holiday, her purse and laptop were missing.
Unfortunately, the laptop contained highly sensitive information about people she was representing and it had insufficient technical security to protect such information. This resulted - in this instance - in an undertaking given to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rather than a penalty (‘the list’). However, there is no guarantee that the ICO will continue to be satisfied with an undertaking. Just to put the matter in sobering perspective, the maximum penalty for the worst cases is currently £500,000, and the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (BMIF) has indicated that its policy does not automatically cover such penalties. In other words, you literally cannot afford to ignore this.
The basics
What do you need to know? Let me start with the basics:
The recommendations
All very interesting, you will say, but what do you actually have to do? Your Bar Council IT panel has drafted “Guidelines on Information Security” which is a splendid read if you have time. Since most of you don’t have the time, I will summarise its “Recommendations”:
Next month, information security for physical materials.
Graham Cunningham, Hardwicke Chambers, with contributions from Iain Mitchell QC, Clive Freedman and Jacqueline Reid of the Bar Council IT Panel
In a two part feature, Graham Cunningham looks at the new guidelines on Information Security; in part 1, he examines the guidelines regarding electronic devices.
There is good news; and there is bad news. The good news is that there are only two or three barristers on the ‘ICO list’. The bad news, in these harsh economic times, is that you could be spending a lot of your increasingly hard-earned cash on paying administrative penalties to the Government.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, examines the forensic science underpinning hair drug testing, its evidential scope and limitations, and why it remains the gold standard for evidencing patterns of drug use in family proceedings
Developing a tech start-up demands a different definition of excellence to the Bar, says Saara Idelbi. The co-creator of Advocatr on entrepreneurship, AI advocacy training, and matching the thrill of a killer cross-examination
At the start of her term, Chair of the Bar 2026 Kirsty Brimelow KC set out a series of priorities for the year ahead. One of those priorities was children in the justice system
As the world becomes more digital, Barbara Vinagre Mota examines international research into the mental health consequences of judges’ exposure to graphic and immersive evidence, highlighting the importance of support systems
Reviewed by Daniel Barnett
James McNeill Whistler at Tate Britain until 27 September Rothko in Florence at Palazzo Strozzi until 23 August Reviewed by Stephen Cragg KC