THE HON. MRS JUSTICE TIPPLES Approved judgment Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2020] EWHC 2951 (QB) e. Paragraph 26(5) is mere assertion. The explanation for the inclusion of the convictions is provided in the article, namely having accused the claimant of lying it is relevant that he has been convicted of offences of dishonesty. The claimant has not pleaded any facts to support a claim that the dominant improper purpose was something else. f. Paragraph 26(6) is mere assertion. g. Paragraph 26(7) imports the malice plea at paragraph 22 of the amended reply. Paragraph 22 is inadequate for the reasons explained above, and do not in any event support a case that these convictions were included maliciously. 56. I therefore agree with the defendant that the malice plea at paragraph 26 of the amended reply should be struck out under CPR Part 3.4(2)(a). The other claims Claim under the 1998 Act 57. This claim relates to the reference to the claimant’s spent convictions in the First Article and is set out at paragraph 7 of the amended particulars of claim. Mr Mitchell conceded in his skeleton argument that paragraph 7.2 should be struck out. That leaves the following allegations made by the claimant under the 1998 Act: “7. Further or alternatively, the publication of the statement at paragraph 3.1.6 above [“Mr Greenstein has previous criminal form for brazen deception, having past convictions for credit card theft and subsequent use, vandalism, drug possession and a number of other petty crimes”] amounts to a breach of section 4(4) of the [1998 Act] for which the defendant is liable to the claimant in damages for distress under section 13 of the Act: 7.1. The purported information in paragraph 3.16 above (“the claimant’s personal data”) is sensitive personal data within the definitions at section 2(g) of the Act, of which the claimant is subject. … 7.3. In processing the claimant’s personal data the defendant has failed and continues to fail to comply with principle 1 in part 1 of schedule 1 to the Act in that: 7.3.1. the defendant has not processed the claimant’s personal data fairly and lawfully, because the data is irrelevant purported information about minor criminal offences from over 30 years ago, and its publication is unnecessary for any legitimate purpose, defamatory and intrusive; and 1 8