A former GP praxis manager has been fined for sending personal data to her own email account without authorisation, following an investigation by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).
Shamim Sadiq worked at Hollybrook Medical centre in Littleover, Derby, but was suspended on 3 november 2017 for unrelated matters and dismissed later that month.
Derby Magistrates court was told that at the time of the incident, Sadiq was also employed by the guardianship Quality charge as a specialist adviser for practice management and so she still had access to her NHS email account following her reprieve from the surgery.
The day after her suspension, Sadiq had forwarded an email from her act email account to her personal email account without a business reason to make so. It contained 13 application forms which had been submitted several months earlier for a vacancy at the surgery and included names, addresses, personal email addresses, national insurance numbers of candidates as well as further personal data of their referees.
The ICO investigation found that on 5 November 2017, Sadiq had received an email from Derby Hospitals NHS understructure combine confirming that she had applied for a carry there.
Steve Eckersley, who heads up investigations at the ICO, said:
People have a redress to expect that their personal data will be handled securely. NHS staff experience access to great deal of personal sensitive data and are therefore in a position of trust. Ms Sadiq betrayed this trust.
She was an experienced exercise manager and had completed relevant training in demarcation with NHS guidelines so would have been aware of appropriate practices in terms of handling personal data.
The tribunal was told the incident was discovered by a member of praxis staff who had been given access to Ms Sadiqs NHS email account for concern continuity following her dismissal. The surgery reported Ms Sadiq to the ICO in december 2017.
Sadiq, of Carlton Road, Derby, admitted unlawfully accessing personal data and was fined �120, plus �364 costs and a victim surcharge of �30. Due to the timing of the incident, the defendant was prosecuted under section 55 of the data protection routine 1998 and not the new Data Protection turn 2018.
