Hacked Off chairman in court bid to have his client’s criminal convictions removed from Google
Hacked Off chairman Hugh Tomlinson, QC, is currently arguing for his nameless client's spent conviction details to be removed from Google's search engine
THE chairman of anti-press group Hacked Off is trying to wipe reports of a wealthy businessman’s “notorious” crimes from Google in a landmark High Court battle.
Hugh Tomlinson QC, right, wants the search engine to remove two links to stories about his client’s imprisonment for false accountancy in the 1990s.
Convicted criminals will be closely following the case, which is English courts’ first “right to be forgotten” battle.
If the case is successful it could lead to a flurry of requests from convicts seeking to remove embarrassing stories about them from the search engine.
He said his claimant, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, has a right to “leave his past behind him” as his convictions have been spent “for some years.”
Mr Tomlinson added that there were “inaccuracies” in the articles and that his client was “not a celebrity” and does not pose “a specific threat to anyone.”
But Antony White QC, for Google, said the claimant was a “very high profile businessman” whose spent convictions relate to “serious business malpractice”.
The court heard his activities that “gave rise to his convictions” were “deceptive, misleading and criminal which became notorious.”
Mr White said they were even “condemned in parliament” and they are still relevant as his current practices “seek investors” and “require customers”.
He added: “He has held himself out to the public on a series of blogs and social media posts as a respected businessman."
In 2014 the European Union's Court of Justice ruled that "irrelevant" and outdated data should be erased on request.
most read in uk news
That case was brought by a Spanish man who claimed that Google infringed his privacy by linking to information about his home repossession.
Antony White QC, for Google, said spent convictions related to “serious business malpractice”. The case continues.
The case is expected to conclude next week, but Mr Justice Warby said it could be 12 months until a judgement is delivered.