Morning:
10°c
Met ordered to destroy photographs of peaceful protestors
21 May 2009A legal challenge over the power of the police to photograph peaceful protestors succeeded at the Court of Appeal today.
Two out of three judges agreed there had been a disproportionate interference in the human right to privacy when police surveillance teams photographed a campaigner and followed him.
It was ordered that the Metropolitan Police destroy the photographs taken of Andrew Wood, a member of the Campaign Against Arms Trade, when he was protesting in London in April 2005.
The order was stayed for a month to allow the police, who must also pay the legal costs, a chance to apply to take the case to the House of Lords.
A spokesman for Liberty, the human rights group which backed the case, said the decision could have implications for future use of photography by the police - a tactic which it said was being used more frequently, particularly when policing protests.
Mr Wood, media coordinator for CAAT, was photographed by a Met surveillance unit in April 2005 as he emerged from London's Millennium Hotel where he had attended the annual general meeting of Reed Elsevier PLC, parent company of Spearhead Exhibitions Ltd which runs trade fairs for the arms industry.
He had gained access to the meeting by lawfully purchasing a share in the company - he has no criminal convictions and has never been arrested as a result of any campaigning activities.
Represented by Liberty, Mr Wood complained the police had taken and retained photographs of him and that these actions were unlawful and violated Article 8 - right to a private life.
A High Court judge dismissed his case in May last year but an appeal against the ruling was allowed by a majority at the Court of Appeal today.
Reader views (9)
Good. It`s time our political police were reigned in.
- Clive Allen, Brighton, UK, 21/05/2009 22:51
Report abuse
a criminal yob is still a law abiding citizen until they are found guilty, to do this they need proof, to get proof they can need to photograph citizens
- John P Reid, london, 21/05/2009 17:57
Report abuse
Anne, Sally not everybody who protests is a yob. I took part in a protest against Heathrow expansion and the most yobbish thing that happened was people throwing sponges at somebody dressed as Gordon Brown. Despite it being completely peaceful the Police continually photographed and recorded those involved like East European Secret Police.
- Mark, London, 21/05/2009 14:49
Report abuse
To Anne in Bow, They are to busy taking 'photos etc of innocent law abiding people who won't fight back to deal with the dangerous yobs.
- Jim, London, 21/05/2009 14:20
Report abuse
Good! Although personally I'd not be too bothered if the police snapped me at a demo. The whole point of a demo is to let everyone know of your opposition to whatever, and (at least today) demos are legal.
More importantly, when are they going to delete the DNA and fingerprints of people never convicted of or not even charged with any crime? The EU court has ruled that holding this data is illegal - not just wrong but illegal - yet Jackboot Jacqui and her mob have still failed to delete these records.
- Nigel, London, 21/05/2009 13:53
Report abuse
Sally and Anne can write but have trouble reading, it seems. The police have been told to destroy pictures of peaceful protestors. Had they been "yobs" sticking scaffolding poles through shop windows, they wouldn't have been peaceful, would have been arrested and then convicted. Keeping pictures of peaceful protestors serves no legitimate or practical purpose - except in a police state.
- Austen, London, 21/05/2009 13:37
Report abuse
And when at the next 'peaceful' demo the first of the yob protestors sticks a scaffolding pole through a shop window there will be cries of "why haven't the police prevented this" from the lilly-livered liberals.
- Anne, Bow, 21/05/2009 13:10
Report abuse
Liberty backing yobs again - there's a surprise.
- Sally, London, 21/05/2009 12:29
Report abuse
Finally! I'm sick of the police behaviour over the past few years, they're really getting too big for their boots. Knowing them though, they won't bother to comply with this ruling - they're above the law, you see...
- James, Manchester, UK, 21/05/2009 12:27
Report abuse
