Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has welcomed today’s ruling by the Court of Appeal that Metropolitan Police broke the law in its routine surveillance of lawful and peaceful activity, including storing photographs on police computers.
The legal action arose from police actions on 27 April 2005 when police officers openly photographed and followed CAAT staff and supporters after they had attended an AGM of a public company, Reed Elsevier, in their capacity as shareholders to question directors about the acquisition of Spearhead, a company that organised arms fairs.
One of those followed and photographed was Andrew Wood. who was then press officer for CAAT. He later acted as appellant/claimant in the case. His case was supported by CAAT, human rights groups and the Press & Public Relations Branch of the National Union of Journalists. The Appeal Court heard the case of 20 January 2009, following a judicial review in the High Court, and handed down judgment on 21 May 2009.
The Court decided that the claimant was entitled to the protection of Article 8 under the Human Rights Act 1998 which gives a right to respect for private and family life and states that: There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right.
The judges decided that although the police photography was undertaken in a public place, there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and the photography could not be separated from its use ie the creation of a police file. The judgment relies on a recent ruling in the European Court of Human Rights regarding the retention of DNA profiles (Marper v UK) and other case law.
Before the judgment Andrew Wood was joined by two members of CAAT in front of the Royal Courts of Justice, displaying a two-metre long statement of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
Ann Feltham, Parliamentary Co-ordinator of Campaign Against Arms Trade, says:
This judgment is a victory for the right of people engage in lawful activities without risking having their photographs stored on police computers. In this case, members of Campaign Against Arms Trade were simply attending the AGM of a public company in their role as shareholders. The police action was a violation of individual privacy and an affront to democratic practices. We look forward to seeing an immediate end to similar actions by the police.
ENDS
For further comment please contact CAAT‘s Media Coordinator Kaye Stearman on 020 7281 0297 / mobile 07990 673232 or email media(at)caat·org·uk CAAT photographs will be available.
Notes
- The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) works for the reduction and ultimate abolition of the international arms trade. 80% of CAAT
s funding comes from individual supporters
donations and CAAT is strictly nonviolent in all its work. - The case, Wood (appellant/claimant) vs MPC for the policing of the metropolis (respondent/ defendant) in the Court of Appeal (ref: 2008/1466), is described in the court documents at http://www.judicialreview.org.uk .
- The legal action arose when the Metropolitan Police openly photographed and followed members of the public attending the AGM of Reed Elsevier on 27 April 2005 at the Millennium Hotel, Grosvenor Square, London. The company, who publish academic journals, had purchased Spearhead – a company which organised arms fairs. Photographs and notes were made of those attending and stored on police computers even though no one attending was arrested or charged with any offence, and the AGM ended normally. The surveillance operation was part of routine intelligence gathering by the police, who didn’t claim to know the claimant’s identity prior to the start of its operation. When leaving the meeting, the claimant and another CAAT staff member were repeatedly photographed by the police from close-up, stopped, questioned and further followed. Police accept that they undertook a surveillance operation, tried to obtain the claimant’s name by subterfuge, and stored information – including photographs – on a computer system even though no illegal activity is alleged; there were no arrests nor any criminal activity.
- The judgment was handed down on 21 May 2009 and was posted at the legal reporting service: http://www.bailii.org/. The judgment is 35 pages in length. Two of the judges found for the claimant. Significantly, all three said that the claimant’s rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 were engaged.
