In a case which raised novel issues under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA), an eminent businessman, whose applications for appointment to a life peerage were three times rebuffed, has failed in a High Court bid to find out why.
The businessman, who was a patron of numerous charities and had performed much public service, argued that he was eminently qualified to wear the ermine. He was keen to contribute further to public life but feared that his hopes had been stymied by two letters received by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
He did not challenge the commission’s decisions and accepted that the identity of the author, or authors, of the letters should be kept private. However, he argued that the information they contained was ‘personal data’ relating to him and that their contents should therefore be disclosed to him under the DPA.
In rejecting his claim, however, the Court noted that details relating to ‘the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity’ were specifically exempted from the DPA. Although a life peer could be said to hold a ‘public office’, as a member of the legislature, appointment to the House of Lords was also an ‘honour’.
Despite recognising the value of transparency in the dealings of the commission, the Court noted that the ‘bright line’ exemption encouraged frank contributions to its considerations. The balance struck by the legislation was a rational one and within the margin of appreciation permitted under European law.