ico. 


Wycliffe  House,  Water  Lane,  Wilmslow,  Cheshire,  SK9  5AF 
T.  0303  123  1113  F.  01625  524510 


Upholding  information  rights 


Information  Commissioner's  Office 


www.ico.org.uk 


Squire  Patton  Boggs  (UK)  LLP 
7  Devonshire  Square 
LONDON 
EC2M  4YH 

For  the  attention  of  Laurence  Winston 
27  March  2018 
Dear  Sir, 

Your  client:  SCL  Elections  L  mi  ted 
Ref:  LMW/CAM. 229-0001 

We  refer  to  your  letter  of  26  March  2018. 

The  Warrant  was  executed  at  a  reasonable  time  in  both  the  circumstances 
of  this  case  and  given  the  international  nature  of  your  client's  business, 
particularly  in  circumstances  where  the  Warrant  had  been  granted  on  the 
evening  of  Friday  23  March;  the  Court  had  rejected  your  client's  offer  to 
supply  the  data  sought  on  Monday  morning;  and  the  ICO  had  confirmed 
to  you  at  the  hearing  that  the  Warrant  was  likely  to  be  executed  before 
the  end  of  the  weekend. 

It  is  wrong  to  say  that  your  client  was  "left  in  the  dark"  or  "given  a  wrong 
impression  about  the  execution  of  the  Warrant,  or  was  "given  to  believe" 
that  the  Warrant  would  be  executed  on  appointment.  ICO  staff  (including 
Sally  Anne  Poole,  to  whom  you  refer  specifically  in  your  letter)  did  not 
mislead  your  client  as  to  when  the  Warrant  would  be  executed  and  in  fact 
told  your  client  explicitly  on  several  occasions  that  they  were  not  in  a 
position  to  say  when  the  Warrant  would  be  executed.  The  ICO  in  fact 
gave  express  notice  of  the  search  in  an  email  from  Emma  Bate  of  the  ICO 
to  Laurence  Winston  of  your  firm  at  8:20  pm  on  Friday  23  March, 
immediately  after  the  search  began  and  some  7  hours  before  it  ended. 
Your  client  had  every  opportunity  to  attend  the  search  if  it  had  wanted  to 
do  so. 

Your  letter  says  that  the  execution  of  the  Warrant  was  motivated  by 
maximising  the  available  publicity"  and  allege  that " the  media  were 
tipped  off  about  the  execution  of  the  warrant".  This  is  untrue.  In  any 
event,  in  a  case  such  as  this  which  has  attracted  considerable 
international  media  interest  (with  significant  numbers  of  journalists  being 
present  both  outside  your  client's  premises  for  days  prior  to  the  hearing 
and  at  the  hearing  itself),  the  suggestion  that  the  media  would  have  to 
have  been  '  tipped  off"  in  order  to  generate  coverage  of  the  execution  of 
the  Warrant  is  absurd. 


FSC 


Mixed  Sources 


Product  group  from  well-managed 
forests,  controlled  sources  and 
recycled  wood  or  fiber 


Cert  no,  TT-COG002272 
www  fsc.org 

6  1996  Fores!  Steward) hip  Council 


ICO. 


Information  Commissioner’s  Office 


For  all  the  reasons  set  out  above,  the  Warrant  was  lawfully  executed  and 
the  ICO  has  acted  entirely  properly  in  this  matter.  Your  threats  of  civil 
action  against  the  ICO,  including  your  demands  for  disclosure  and  specific 
threats  to  recover  the  cost  of  replacement  hardware,  "compensation  and 
"consequential  loss",  are  baseless  and  are  rejected. 

The  ICO  will  return  the  laptop  computers  and  other  hardware  seized  once 
it  is  no  longer  necessary  for  that  hardware  to  be  retained.  You  will  be 
notified  in  due  course. 

Yours  faithfully, 


Emma  Bate 

General  Legal  Counsel 


FSC 


Mixed  Sources 


Product  group  from  well-managed 
forests,  controlled  sources  and 
recycled  wood  or  fiber 


Cert  no  TT-COC-002272 
www.fsc.org 

e  IMS  Forest  Stewardship  Coundl