A consequence of the right to be forgotten (under GDPR law)?

[BonfireLady]

Request - if you think you know the name of (or any other personal identifiable information about) the killer in the example below, please do not add it to this thread. If anyone does add these details, please could you report the comment for removal

I was talking to someone IRL about a recent court case that hit the headlines. The convicted killer was described as a woman who killed her sibling and stole a possession. I used it as an example of (yet another 😔) crime perpetrated by a male yet reported as having been committed by a female.

I googled a few key words to pull up the evidence of the killer's sex, having remembered reading about the case before it went to court.... nothing. It's like I must have imagined it.

Then, I scrolled to the bottom and was informed by the search engine that some results may have been removed because of the ruling from Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) about the right to be forgotten. After a bit more digging I found that this law had passed in 2014 (so I assume it's part of the UK version of GDPR that followed Brexit) and that action will only be taken to remove results if someone requests this.

A little bit more digging suggests that this law doesn't allow anyone to request removal of their sex if it is in the public interest to know it. However, it's not clear who decides where this threshold sits.

Does anyone else remember this case being about a male killer because of information they read online? If so, which country are you in and can you still see that information somewhere online, either via a search engine or directly on a website?

Assuming I'm not going mad, if the right to be forgotten allows anyone (perhaps with a GRC under the GRA?) to have facts about their sex removed from the internet, we're in for some of the darkest times yet re free speech.

NB Personal identifiable information is any information that can lead to an individual being identified. Please can I request extra caution as I'd rather this thread didn't have to be deleted.

TBF, I'd rather be wrong and have imagined the whole thing.

Information from the ICO on personal identifiable information:

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/personal-information-what-is-it/what-is-personal-information-a-guide/

I remember hearing about the case on the radio this week and my immediate thought was ‘unusual crime for a woman and I don’t remember hearing anything about it at the time’. But no, I don’t remember hearing about it in a different way before.

I can think of another sex offender who seems to have used this route to disappear coverage of their court case and conviction. Martin Ponting/Jessica Winfield. This information is a matter of public record. I don’t think hiding it should be allowed for convicted criminals, especially where violent and/or sexual offences are concerned.

(Edited to correct the offender’s name. It seems there is more recent reporting about this individual being moved to a men’s prison from a women’s one.)

Not sure if it's the right one, but the one I found said there were rumours on social media that she was a man, but apparently she had children so a bit unlikely.

However, I do think these days the BBC would report somewhere in the report the correct sex of the killer. So I very much presume the incident I am thinking of (which of course may be different to the one you are) was carried out by a female.

That message comes up for all my searches, it doesn’t mean it’s been used

I’ve seen this mentioned on social media but not in any articles. Photo is ambiguous if it’s the case I assume you’re referring to.

Thank you for posting about this. As soon as I read it, I knew the case that you were talking about, and I admit that I had taken the coverage at face value, and had no idea that it was a male perpetrator.

Thank you for the responses so far.

there were rumours on social media that she was a man, but apparently she had children so a bit unlikely.

Males can have children. They just can't gestate them.

I had taken the coverage at face value, and had no idea that it was a male perpetrator.

It's possible I've not remembered it correctly. Hence asking if anyone recalls seeing information previously.

'I don't think that this 'right to be forgotten' is quite so damaging as you fear. Surely the offender's name couldn't be de-linked from a very recent court case in search results? And in serious, high-profile cases it would likely never be de-linked?
I guess that people with a trans identity may be likely to request removal of their names from search results in order to separate themselves from association with their actual sex. But all that means, really, is that we can't reliably google people to determine their sex. I'm not sure that is a free speech issue. Nothing is deleted from the internet. We just lack a sleuthing tool that is of doubtful moral value.

I think you are misremembering and the sister had a alternative name which you’ve confused.

Just to be clear on this point: as I understand it, nothing is deleted from the internet in response to these requests. It is only search results that are affected. And I don't think that simply mentioning this case or linking to coverage of it would be grounds for deleting the thread. Normal talk guidelines would apply.

(Also, I'm not sure if you are aware that the statement about some search results possibly having been removed appears every time you search on a name. So it isn't evidence that there has been any removal in the case of this individual.)

She was the MOTHER of children.

The 2014 amendment isn’t Brexit related (the referendum was in 2019)

It relates to a case brought to the ECJ, and resulted in changes to all GDPR related legislation

It does not give a right to have crimes erased - the nearest to that is to be able to apply for spent crimes to be excluded

https://www.right2bforgotten.co.uk/faqs-right-to-be-forgotten

Retaining birth sex could be argued both ways of being harmful to a trans individual (at risk of being targeted) and of public interest (changing the nature of their crime for the awareness of risk)

They cannot separate their name from the crime, and cannot remove court records
They can request removal from web sites hosted in the scope of GDPR compliant countries and / or request search engines exclude specific links
Requests can also be declined

I'm possibly being over cautious but would rather err on that side of things.

What I recall seeing previously, but can no longer find, is information in which a photo of the two siblings taking a selfie in front of barren ground was included. The case was first heard last year (the recent court appearance followed on) and this is the time at which I would have read it.

It's good to know that the information on the search engine banner is standard. I've never bothered looking before, so hadn't realised. Thank you @TofuTuesday for that too. Also I'm aware the murdered sister had a different name previously.

It is only search results that are affected.

Indeed. But I'm unable to find anything in a couple of the usual places I would have read stuff, using their own search function. Hopefully I really did imagine having read it.

The 2014 amendment isn’t Brexit related (the referendum was in 2019)
It relates to a case brought to the ECJ, and resulted in changes to all GDPR related legislation

Indeed. But after Brexit, the UK created its own version of GDPR which effectively included everything that was already in it. So this would have been taken across into UK GDPR.

Retaining birth sex could be argued both ways of being harmful to a trans individual (at risk of being targeted) and of public interest (changing the nature of their crime for the awareness of risk)
They cannot separate their name from the crime, and cannot remove court records
They can request removal from web sites hosted in the scope of GDPR compliant countries and / or request search engines exclude specific links

Edited (italics above are added by me): the italicised words are interesting, as I hadn't been aware of this. I thought it was just search engines. The rest of my original comment ⬇️ is still relevant, with the addition of "and Europe".

This is why I'm curious about what can be seen from outside the UK and Europe.

The 2014 amendment isn’t Brexit related (the referendum was in 2019)

Just for accuracy: the referendum was in 2016 and Brexit was completed in 2020.

Good point!

Also, given this They can request removal from web sites hosted in the scope of GDPR compliant countries I'm going to assume Mumsnet would need to remove any mention of someone's name (and other identifiable information?) if this had been done.

So while it's tempting to ask for evidence that the killer is (not sure why the past tense is being used) a mother, please don't add this to the thread @catipuss

Yes on the in & out of Europe

It also covers the data held by businesses etc, but is less relevant to the topic in hand

If the requester only goes to search engines to exclude links, rather than the source pages (or the source pages decline) * then the source information would still be out there, (non GDPR site sources remain)

That means an overseas search will find the contents, but a UK search won’t find the contents
Therefore a mix of alternate search engines and / or VPNs ought to find content, but without explicit effort the content wouldn’t be found

-* An original source could decline to remove relevant details based on public interest of the facts, but it could become semi invisible if search engines accept the removal of the link

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-jennifer-abbott-woman-charged-35424074?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target this is from 2025. I think you are incorrect in this.

That means an overseas search will find the contents, but a UK search won’t find the contents
Therefore a mix of alternate search engines and / or VPNs ought to find content, but without explicit effort the content wouldn’t be found

Thank you. Slightly chilling.....

I don't think the US has the equivalent of UK GDPR and the CJEU ruling but I'm going to assume Australia's current interpretation of its own laws mean it would be a difficult task to find anything that had been removed under UK GDPR about a story in the UK (Australian law on sex v gender identity seems like a massive tangled and unfathomable web).

@mnhq please can you delete the post at 10.14. It includes personal information about someone that makes it inappropriate for this thread.

I think you've misremembered this. Unfortunately, since the media, the police, the CPS, the judiciary and everyone else involved moved to using preferred pronouns I am routinely suspicious when we get reports of a violent crime committed by a woman. However, although it's rare for a woman or girl to commit violent crimes, especially alone rather than in association with a man or boy, and especially rare for her to attack another adult rather than a young child , it's not unknown. I'm not a criminologist but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's more common within families.

In this case, it seemed so odd I that I did google a bit at the time the sister's arrest was first reported. I've found nothing to suggest that she was actually a he.

Terribly sad for the children of the two sisters.

I've seen this wording at the bottom of hundreds of Google searches. I don't think it necessarily means anything has been removed, just that it's possible.

It came in years ago and I remember some discussion about it then (not on FWR, just generally).

That doesn't work. You need to use the report button or email them.