[DEBATE] : UK - Surveillance of protesters ruled illegal

[Riaz K Tayob]

[Slow reclamation of rights of making the usurpation look less despotic?]

Surveillance of protesters ruled illegal

* Buzz up!
* Digg it

* Matthew Taylor and Paul Lewis
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 May 2009 21.25 BST
* Article history

Police surveillance of a peaceful protester was ruled unlawful today in 
a decison that lawyers say will change the way demonstrations and 
protests are policed.

Judges ruled that specialist ­surveillance units from the Metropolitan 
police had breached the human rights of Andrew Wood, an arms trade 
campaigner, when they photographed him and stored the pictures on a 
police database.

One judge said there were ­unresolved civil liberties questions about 
the way images were taken and retained in "the modern surveillance 
society". Lord ­Justice Dyson said there were "very serious human rights 
issues which arise when the state obtains and retains the images of 
persons who have committed no offence and are not suspected of having 
­committed any offence".

The judgment is a blow to the Met, which has been criticised over the 
way it polices protests since last month's G20 ­demonstrations and the 
death of Ian Tomlinson.

Tonight, human rights lawyers said the ruling could force police to 
delete thousands of images of protesters stored on their database unless 
they have grounds for suspecting them of criminal activity.

Anna Mazzola, of the solicitors Hickman & Rose, said: "The judgment of 
the court of appeal should act as a stark ­warning to the Metropolitan 
police that the ­circumstances in which they can justify taking and 
retaining photographs of ­members of the public who have ­committed no 
crime is highly circumscribed."

The case follows an investigation by the Guardian, which revealed police 
have been targeting thousands of campaigners in surveillance operations 
and storing their details on a criminal intelligence database for up to 
seven years.

Parts of the ­Guardian's investigation, which included information 
obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, were submitted in 
evidence to the court of appeal.

Yesterday, Wood, who was represented by the human rights group Liberty 
and who was a member of the Campaign Against Arms Trade when he was 
photographed leaving a meeting in 2005, said he was delighted with the 
ruling. "The Human Rights Act is part of the essential checks and 
balances which help to ensure that we can properly participate in a 
democratic society without repressive state intervention," he said. "The 
police don't just uphold the law - they must abide by it."

The case went before the high court last year when judges ruled against 
Wood. But yesterday two of the three judges ruled in his favour, saying 
there had been a ­"disproportionate interference in the human right to 
privacy".

Dyson said: "The retention by the police of photographs taken of persons 
who have not committed an offence, and who are not even suspected of 
having committed an offence, is always a serious matter. The only 
justification advanced by the police for retaining the photographs for 
more than a few days after the meeting was the possibility that the 
appellant might attend and commit an offence … that justification does 
not bear scrutiny."

Lord Collins added that the substantial police presence which confronted 
the arms campaigners had a "chilling effect" on people who had been 
lawfully ­protesting. A third dissenting judge said the Met had acted 
reasonably.

The judgment does not ban specialist police cameramen, known as forward 
intelligence teams, but it does mean the long-term retention of their 
pictures must be justified on a case-by-case basis.

The photographs of Wood were taken in April 2005 as he emerged from the 
Millennium hotel, London, where he had attended the annual general 
meeting of Reed ­Elsevier plc, the parent company of Spearhead 
Exhibitions Ltd, which runs trade fairs for the arms industry.

He had gained access to the meeting by buying a share in the company. He 
has no criminal convictions and has never been arrested as a result of 
any campaigning activities.

Last night the Met said the ruling did not mean it was unlawful to use 
"overt surveillance", which it said was "truly valuable in public order 
policing".

Chief Superintendent Ian Thomas, the officer in charge of the Met's 
public order branch, said the police would continue to use surveillance. 
But he added that the judgment ­provided a "valuable set of guidelines".

Surveillance of protesters ruled illegal | UK news | The Guardian (22 
May 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/may/21/police-surveillance-ruling-andrew-wood