malvern
21-05-2009, 09:40 PM
came across this today while over at jw's ....interesting in itself, now what will they do with all this CTV footage and other film they gaver.... but i like the reason why the appeal was given........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1185588/Police-ordered-destroy-photos-peaceful-protester-landmark-human-rights-ruling.html
Police ordered to destroy photos of peaceful protester in landmark human rights ruling
Police could be forced to destroy huge archives of surveillance photographs taken at protests, riots and football matches following a landmark human rights judgement in the Appeal Court.
Senior judges ruled today that a law-abiding activist campaigning against the arms trade had his right to privacy breached when a Scotland Yard intelligence unit took photographs of him and kept them on file even though he was not suspected of any offence.
In a judgement which could have huge implications for all UK police forces they ordered the Metropolitan Police to destroy all pictures of campaigner Andrew Wood - allowing a one-month delay for an appeal to the House of Lords.
The ground-breaking case marks another blow to 'Big Brother' surveillance powers, coming hard on the Home Office's recent defeat when it was forced to stop storing DNA profiles indefinitely of millions of innocent people who are arrested by police but never charged or convicted.
Unless the police can overturn the ruling they could now have to sift through hundreds of thousands of stored surveillance photographs and destroy all pictures of innocent people.
Forces across the UK have spent years amassing huge numbers of 'overt surveillance' photographs - those taken openly, rather than through undercover operations - and police photographers in uniform have become a familiar sight at major crowd events including football matches and protests.
Senior officers claim the tactic helps them identify extremist activists, violent football thugs and anarchists trying to hijack mainstream events - as well as providing evidence for later prosecutions.
The case centres on the experience of Andrew Wood, a leading member of the UK-based Campaign Against Arms Trade, who took part in a protest in London in April 2005.
Mr Wood, from Oxford, attended the annual general meeting of Reed Elsevier PLC, parent company of Spearhead Exhibitions Ltd which runs trade fairs for the arms industry.
He was entitled to be at the meeting at the Millennium Hotel having bought a share in the company. He had never been arrested and had no convictions.
But Scotland Yard was concerned about a protest outside and sent 24 officers along with a surveillance unit which took pictures of Mr Wood, claiming later that he was seen talking to known violent activists.
Represented by the civil rights group Liberty Mr Wood complained that taking and keeping photographs of him breached his right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights.
He lost his initial case last year but today two out of three judges hearing an appeal ruled in his favour, declaring the police tactics a 'disproportionate interference.'
Lord Justice Dyson said it was legitimate for police to take the photographs, but it should have been clear within a few days that Mr Wood was of good character, and there was no need to keep pictures of him.
The only justification they offered in court was that he might attend protests at a major arms trade fair a few months later and commit an offence there, but that was not enough to justify their interference with Mr Wood's rights, he said.
Lord Collins of Mapesbury, who also upheld the appeal, said he was 'struck by the chilling effect on the exercise of lawful rights' which being followed by a police photographer would have.
The third judge Lord Justice Laws disagreed, saying he believed the police acted within 'the margin of operational discretion' in keeping the photographs.
A Metropolitan Police spokesman last night defended the force's conduct, saying the tactic of overt photography was 'truly valuable' in public order policing and policing in general.
Chief Supt Ian Thomas, who runs the Met's public order branch, said: 'For our policing plan to be the most effective we need to have the fullest possible intelligence picture.
'Overt photography helps us build a picture of who is involved in planning and organising any potential disorder or crime. It may also provide us with evidence that would be beneficial to any legal proceedings.
'There is nothing secretive or covert about the way we do this, and this practice is very well known and understood in protester circles.'
It is understood Scotland Yard is considering whether to appeal to the House of Lords.
"Lord Collins of Mapesbury, who also upheld the appeal, said he was 'struck by the chilling effect on the exercise of lawful rights' which being followed by a police photographer would have."
'struck by the chilling effect on the exercise of lawful rights'
that just says it ...
freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1185588/Police-ordered-destroy-photos-peaceful-protester-landmark-human-rights-ruling.html
Police ordered to destroy photos of peaceful protester in landmark human rights ruling
Police could be forced to destroy huge archives of surveillance photographs taken at protests, riots and football matches following a landmark human rights judgement in the Appeal Court.
Senior judges ruled today that a law-abiding activist campaigning against the arms trade had his right to privacy breached when a Scotland Yard intelligence unit took photographs of him and kept them on file even though he was not suspected of any offence.
In a judgement which could have huge implications for all UK police forces they ordered the Metropolitan Police to destroy all pictures of campaigner Andrew Wood - allowing a one-month delay for an appeal to the House of Lords.
The ground-breaking case marks another blow to 'Big Brother' surveillance powers, coming hard on the Home Office's recent defeat when it was forced to stop storing DNA profiles indefinitely of millions of innocent people who are arrested by police but never charged or convicted.
Unless the police can overturn the ruling they could now have to sift through hundreds of thousands of stored surveillance photographs and destroy all pictures of innocent people.
Forces across the UK have spent years amassing huge numbers of 'overt surveillance' photographs - those taken openly, rather than through undercover operations - and police photographers in uniform have become a familiar sight at major crowd events including football matches and protests.
Senior officers claim the tactic helps them identify extremist activists, violent football thugs and anarchists trying to hijack mainstream events - as well as providing evidence for later prosecutions.
The case centres on the experience of Andrew Wood, a leading member of the UK-based Campaign Against Arms Trade, who took part in a protest in London in April 2005.
Mr Wood, from Oxford, attended the annual general meeting of Reed Elsevier PLC, parent company of Spearhead Exhibitions Ltd which runs trade fairs for the arms industry.
He was entitled to be at the meeting at the Millennium Hotel having bought a share in the company. He had never been arrested and had no convictions.
But Scotland Yard was concerned about a protest outside and sent 24 officers along with a surveillance unit which took pictures of Mr Wood, claiming later that he was seen talking to known violent activists.
Represented by the civil rights group Liberty Mr Wood complained that taking and keeping photographs of him breached his right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights.
He lost his initial case last year but today two out of three judges hearing an appeal ruled in his favour, declaring the police tactics a 'disproportionate interference.'
Lord Justice Dyson said it was legitimate for police to take the photographs, but it should have been clear within a few days that Mr Wood was of good character, and there was no need to keep pictures of him.
The only justification they offered in court was that he might attend protests at a major arms trade fair a few months later and commit an offence there, but that was not enough to justify their interference with Mr Wood's rights, he said.
Lord Collins of Mapesbury, who also upheld the appeal, said he was 'struck by the chilling effect on the exercise of lawful rights' which being followed by a police photographer would have.
The third judge Lord Justice Laws disagreed, saying he believed the police acted within 'the margin of operational discretion' in keeping the photographs.
A Metropolitan Police spokesman last night defended the force's conduct, saying the tactic of overt photography was 'truly valuable' in public order policing and policing in general.
Chief Supt Ian Thomas, who runs the Met's public order branch, said: 'For our policing plan to be the most effective we need to have the fullest possible intelligence picture.
'Overt photography helps us build a picture of who is involved in planning and organising any potential disorder or crime. It may also provide us with evidence that would be beneficial to any legal proceedings.
'There is nothing secretive or covert about the way we do this, and this practice is very well known and understood in protester circles.'
It is understood Scotland Yard is considering whether to appeal to the House of Lords.
"Lord Collins of Mapesbury, who also upheld the appeal, said he was 'struck by the chilling effect on the exercise of lawful rights' which being followed by a police photographer would have."
'struck by the chilling effect on the exercise of lawful rights'
that just says it ...
freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers