Private investigators, public traps
Private investigators may be useful for obtaining vital evidence but they need to be carefully managed, warn Andrew Keltie and Nina Moffat of Baker & McKenzie. A salutary example is Hewlett-Packard – the world’s largest PC manufacturer was caught up in a scandal involving boardroom leaks and ‘pretexting’ – while London law firm Mischon de Reya experienced negative publicity following the case of Hughes v Carratu International plc  EWHC 1791.
Andrew Keltie (+44 (20) 7919 1376, andrew, firstname.lastname@example.org) is a partner and Nina Moffat is a trainee solicitor in the Business Crime Unit of Baker & McKenzie LLP, London.
Criminal sanctions under the Data Protection Act 1998
“Pretexting” is the practice of obtaining personal data, such as account information and credit reports, from organisations under false pretences, often by impersonating the target individual. It is a criminal offence under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) to unlawfully obtain personal data without proper consent. The concern for law firms and other employers of private investigators is that criminal liability under this section extends to those instructing the investigators as they may be considered to be a data controller under the DPA.
The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.
If you are already a subscriber, please enter your details below to log in.
If you are not already a subscriber, please select one of the options below.
Sign up for a free trial or for further assistance call your Account Manager or our
Customer support: +44 (0)20 7017 7701 Technical Support: +44 (0) 20 7017 4161