The reason? I'd forgotten to include in evidence the documents that showed UK Apollo group scraping email addresses from the rest of job seeker data in my bundle. This was necessary as the initial spam was sent to an encoded email address (e.g. jobsite.<date>@<domain>).
So essentially it was not the case where the defence was robust and proven, it was simply an error on my part which failed to cement the facts of the case. UK Apollo would not be able to refer to this year long legal entanglement as a 'victory' as a result, and they also disclosed a lot of facts in a court of law - facts that would be of interest to regulators and in future SARs.
Furthermore, the judge refused to accept evidence of spam emails received after the submission of the date of the claim, which included readily identifiable email addresses. He also noted - but failed to act on - the fact that the first defence was submitted unsigned, and an alleged re-write of the defence was never served to the claimant.
In fact the trial was the first time I'd heard that Apollo had even adhered to the application to strike / re-write judgement.
Despite a number of breaches of CPR by the defendant (duly noted but not enacted by the judge) the defence - such that it was - was allowed to stand, despite a submission related to Denton & others. I even submitted a revised bundle for the second trial after the court ushers directed me to the wrong floor in the first trial - but the judge claimed not to have it in front of him. Good thing I got delivery receipts then.
Very interesting - almost as interesting as the very personal remarks made by the defendants rep, Keith Taylor. He was very angry! He couldn't actually apply a robust defence at all and I'll share the highlights of the comedic vitroil once I get the trial transcribed. You shouldn't laugh too much in a court. At one point he claimed that ICO was getting the law changed to help his company continue to spam people. Of course, no evidence was presented to substantiate any of these statements.
Keith even claimed he charges his time at £1k per day, although judging by the posted accounts none of the companies seem to be charging for many of his consultancy days. Most of the people associated with Apollo appear to have many other jobs too....
Also of note was the defence at one point admitting liability at two points, saying "just find me guilty, m'lud and fine me￡200 so we can all go home.". In court, on record.
However because the district judge excluded the emails following the initial claim document they are not considered part of the claim that has now been judged by the court. One of those spam emails was to an account I have listed as <firstname>.<surname>@<domain> - which is personal data in itself.
I think I can see why the judge did what he did and I've decided not to appeal for a number of reasons (not least the additional costs liability if I get something wrong). So I sent Apollo a shiny, brand new SAR last week - they've read it twice but are yet to respond. He awarded a £55 cost for the defendant - which should cover his petrol home.
