Written question asked by Mike Wood (Conservative) on Wednesday, 11 February 2026, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Monday, 23 February 2026. It was answered by Sarah Sackman (Labour) on Friday, 27 February 2026 on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.

Courtsdesk: Data Protection

Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the oral contribution of the Minister for Courts and Legal Services of 10 February 2026, Official Report, Column 707, for what reason the data protection breach was sufficient to terminate the contract but did not meet the threshold for an Information Commissioner referral.

Answer

The Ministry of Justice is committed to protecting the personal and sensitive information entrusted to us. The agreement which Courtsdesk entered into with HMCTS specified that it would not pass data on to any party other than journalists without the permission of HMCTS. Courtsdesk acted outside the terms of that agreement by sharing data with a third party AI company. It did not seek HMCTS’ permission to use the data in that way. In those circumstances, it was entirely appropriate to suspend the arrangement between HMCTS and Courtsdesk.

Data protection officials considered that the circumstances did not meet the threshold required for referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Ministry of Justice is committed to open justice as well as the responsible use of data and protecting data privacy. Our approach in this matter vindicates those principles.

Secondary information

Type: Written question
Reference: 112638
Session: 2024-26
Related items: Court Reporting Data
Tuesday, 10 February 2026
Proceeding contributions
House of Commons; Courtsdesk: Data Protection
Tuesday, 15 September 2026
Written questions
House of Commons
Subjects: Contracts Data protection Databases Law reporting Courtsdesk
Link: View this Written question on www.parliament.uk

Courtsdesk: Data Protection

Secondary information

Librarians' tools