According to his lawyer, Tamsin Allen of Bindmans Solicitors, an
application will submitted in April for his case to be heard in
Strasbourg.
The argument will be made that Mr Durant has suffered a breach
of Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, which
provides that "everyone has the right to respect for his private
and family life, his home and his correspondence."
Mr Durant has been seeking access to certain information for
many years. His dispute began when Barclays Bank claimed the
repayment of a loan that Mr Durant maintains he never received. He
believes he was the victim of a fraud but Barclays successfully
sued him for the missing £120,000 in 1993.
Mr Durant has been seeking access to documents that would prove
his claim ever since. However, the Financial Services Authority
backed Barclays' refusal to give him access to an internal case
file: it was confidential, they argued. And they maintain that Mr
Durant has been given access to everything to which he is entitled
within the limits of the Data Protection Act.
That Act provides a right of subject access. But its limits were
tested by Mr Durant's case. In December 2003, the Court of Appeals
issued a landmark ruling that narrowed the scope of personal data
and when structured manual files were caught by the Act. The result
of this interpretation was a narrowing of the right of
subject access under the Act.
The House of Lords did not change that ruling; it simply refused
Mr Durant's request for leave to appeal.
Ms Allen believes that Mr Durant's decision to continue his
battle is partly a matter of principle. But she added that he's
still seeking the information that will clear his name. "He doesn't
accept what the FSA and Barclays have told him," she said. "Nobody
has adequately analysed the documents in question; the Court of
Appeal took a very broad-brush approach."
The case in Strasbourg is not against the FSA. It is against the
UK Government. "If a national court doesn't fulfil its obligations
under the Convention when it applies national law, the government
is responsible," said Ms Allen.
The Strasbourg Court has the power to order an award of
compensation if it finds that Mr Durant's human rights were
breached. It could decide that 'just satisfaction' is simply a
change in the law; or it might decide that compensation is also
appropriate if, for example, the relevant documents have since
disappeared.
Mr Durant hopes for an order that will support his claim for
access to the personal data contained in the documents. If the
order is in his favour, he can revert to Barclays and the FSA and
argue for access under a wider definition of personal data.
The grounds for Mr Durant's Strasbourg application have not yet
been finalised, according to Ms Allen. After the application is
submitted, an admissibility hearing will be scheduled. If the Court
accepts the case, a full hearing will follow. A decision could take
several years.
