"The right to be forgotten is meant to apply to information that is no longer relevant but disproportionately impacts a person," said Jim Killock, executive director.

"The Court will have to balance the public's right to access the historical record, the precise impacts on the person, and the public interest."

I feel like every single comment on here has missed the point. This isn't about removing relevant information, it's about removing information that disproportionately affects an individual and is of no public interest. For example, if someone famous puts a gerbil up their bottom and gets sentenced for animal cruelty, and that gets widely publicised, it might be true but it affects that person extremely negatively at no cost or benefit to the rest of society. This is the case here: a man served his time and the court ruled that his case was not sufficiently relevant for the public interest to still be publically accessible - he cannot be descriminated against because of his past action. In developed countries this would never happen when the case is relevant for that person or society, for example a high ranking corruption case or if the person becomes a convicted paedophile.