PAP and/or MiM R.
All Media Reports
Analysis of the Response Provided by the National World Group (21 November 2025)
The email issued by the National World Group on 21 November 2025, in reply to the Pre‑Action Protocol notice sent on 20 November 2025, presents a series of procedural and legal deficiencies that warrant formal documentation. The response does not meet the standards required under the Pre‑Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims, nor does it engage with the substantive issues raised. The key points of non‑compliance are outlined below.
1. Incorrect reliance on “qualified privilege”
National World invokes “qualified privilege” on the basis that the article reproduced information contained in a press release issued by East Sussex County Council.
This argument is legally unsustainable. Qualified privilege does not apply where:
This argument is legally unsustainable. Qualified privilege does not apply where:
- the information is inaccurate or misleading,
- the information is outdated,
- the publication concerns a spent conviction,
- the continued dissemination causes ongoing disproportionate harm, or
- the publisher fails to take reasonable steps to verify or update the material.
All these conditions are present in this case. The invocation of qualified privilege therefore provides no lawful basis for continued publication.
2. Misrepresentation of the “news archive” exemption
The response asserts that the “Right to be Forgotten” does not apply to news archives.
This is a partial and misleading interpretation of the law. The exemption applies only where the archived data remain:
This is a partial and misleading interpretation of the law. The exemption applies only where the archived data remain:
- accurate,
- relevant,
- up‑to‑date, and
- necessary for a legitimate journalistic purpose.
The data published by National World fail all four criteria. The conviction referenced became spent on 22 December 2024, rendering its continued disclosure unlawful under both UK GDPR and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The “archive” argument is therefore inapplicable.
3. Improper delegation of responsibility to East Sussex County Council
National World states that any amendments will be made only if East Sussex County Council instructs them to do so.
This position is incompatible with the legal status of National World as an independent data controller and as a publisher.
A publisher cannot delegate its statutory obligations to a third party. National World remains responsible for:
This position is incompatible with the legal status of National World as an independent data controller and as a publisher.
A publisher cannot delegate its statutory obligations to a third party. National World remains responsible for:
- verifying the accuracy of the material it publishes,
- ensuring compliance with data protection law, and
- preventing the continued dissemination of unlawful personal data.
The attempt to shift responsibility onto ESCC constitutes a clear failure of editorial and data‑controller duties.
4. Unlawful disclosure of spent conviction data
The conviction referenced in the article became spent on 22 December 2024.
From that date, its disclosure is prohibited except in narrowly defined statutory exceptions, none of which apply to National World.
The continued publication of spent conviction data constitutes:
From that date, its disclosure is prohibited except in narrowly defined statutory exceptions, none of which apply to National World.
The continued publication of spent conviction data constitutes:
- a breach of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974,
- unlawful processing under UK GDPR, and
- ongoing reputational harm.
The response of 21 November 2025 does not address this issue.
5. Failure to engage with GDPR obligations
The Pre‑Action Protocol notice identified multiple breaches of UK GDPR, including:
- Article 5(1)(d) — accuracy
- Article 5(1)(e) — storage limitation
- Article 6 — absence of lawful basis
- Article 16 — rectification
- Article 17 — erasure
- Article 21 — objection
- Article 24 — controller responsibility
The National World response does not address any of these obligations.
This omission is recorded as a substantive failure.
This omission is recorded as a substantive failure.
6. Failure to acknowledge the ICO decision of 27 January 2025
The Information Commissioner’s Office has already issued a decision confirming that it will not exercise jurisdiction and that the competent forum is Italy.
This decision reinforces the unlawfulness of continued publication and the absence of any effective regulatory remedy within the United Kingdom.
National World’s response does not mention or consider this decision.
This decision reinforces the unlawfulness of continued publication and the absence of any effective regulatory remedy within the United Kingdom.
National World’s response does not mention or consider this decision.
7. Non‑compliance with the Pre‑Action Protocol
The response of 21 November 2025 does not constitute a compliant PAP reply. Specifically, it fails to:
- address the factual inaccuracies raised,
- address the legal grounds cited,
- provide a substantive position,
- propose any form of resolution,
- engage with the GDPR issues,
- engage with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act,
- engage with the ICO decision,
- engage with the request for removal or de‑indexing.
This non‑compliance is formally recorded.
Conclusion
The National World Group’s reply of 21 November 2025 is procedurally insufficient and legally unsound.
It fails to meet the requirements of the Pre‑Action Protocol, misapplies key legal concepts, and does not address the unlawful nature of the continued publication of inaccurate and spent conviction data.
This analysis is preserved as part of the official documentation of the case ESCC v Riccardo Gresta and forms part of the evidentiary record for subsequent escalation in the competent jurisdiction.
It fails to meet the requirements of the Pre‑Action Protocol, misapplies key legal concepts, and does not address the unlawful nature of the continued publication of inaccurate and spent conviction data.
This analysis is preserved as part of the official documentation of the case ESCC v Riccardo Gresta and forms part of the evidentiary record for subsequent escalation in the competent jurisdiction.
The analysis of the documented activities indicates a pattern of conduct characterised by traceability, procedural compliance and institutional oversight, which is difficult to reconcile with the accusatory narrative.
Procedural Closure – Status Recorded
This notification was formally issued to all relevant entities, who were offered the opportunity to provide clarifications or counter‑documentation. As of the present date 21 February 2026, no objections, corrections, or alternative factual reconstructions have been submitted. The notification phase is therefore considered procedurally closed. A right of reply remains available, but any late submissions will not alter the factual framework established during the notification period.
The Record Speaks
