I’m taking them to court
NUJ public relations member ANDREW WOOD came under police surveillance three years ago and he didn’t take it lying down. He brought a High Court case that is still going on
POLICE are not the only ones who can instigate legal action; they can be on the receiving end. In April I was at the High Court in London for a judicial review. I was the claimant, and the Metropolitan Police was the defendant.
I claimed the police had acted unlawfully when they undertook a “routine” surveillance operation in April 2005. At the time I was the press officer for the Campaign Against Arms Trade and I was attending a company meeting of the big Anglo-Dutch publishing firm Reed Elsevier — which had bought up Spearhead, a company which organises arms fairs. I was there as a shareholder to question the board. The AGM was unremarkable; it ended normally, and it was peaceful.
The police repeatedly photographed myself and others close-up; a colleague and I were followed and questioned; attempts were made to obtain my identity by subterfuge. You can imagine my anxiety: why was I being singled out? There seemed to be no rationale for the police attention.
Later I learned that my photograph, like those of others, was stored in a computer system and that my details were held in a criminal intelligence database. Further, the police had deduced my name using a shareholder list, adding it to their records. I was a “suspect” and, like other suspects, my photo was likely to appear on a police spotter sheet used by police officers on other occasions. The police say that such surveillance assists their investigations where there might be unlawful activity. But no unlawful activity occurred at Reed Elsevier’s AGM, and no criminal investigation was being undertaken.
Such invasive surveillance may discourage participation in the political process; indeed it may institutionalise political interference. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) — respect for private and family life, now part of English law — was intended to safeguard against this sort of thing.
To date, most legal challenges regarding Article 8 interference and photography have involved celebrities. My case is to safeguard democracy and political freedom. Journalists may have concerns about potential restrictions on photography, but lawyers for the police have made it clear that the photographs and other information they hold are not intended for publication.
Back in the High Court, Justice McCrombe handed down his judgment in May. He found against me — but gave permission to appeal, noting: “It is perhaps intrusion by the state with which the draftsmen of the Convention [the ECHR] would have been particularly concerned in 1949 and I felt throughout the case the importance that the courts should attach to vigilance in this area.”
The appeal is expected to be heard early next year.
More information on the case at www.judicialreview.org.uk