nuclear-news

Lawyers acting for 87-year-old John Catt, who has not been linked to any crimes at demonstrations he has attended, argued that police are maintaining a file on their client simply because his regular presence at protests, in contravention of his right to privacy.

The case has major implications for the way the police go about placing protest groups under surveillance in the future.

Tim Owen QC told the court that the police’s current approach means that students who peacefully march at demonstrations where others are involved in violence could end up on the extremism database because they “happen to be seen at another demonstration”.

He added that the effect of the police’s surveillance of regular, peaceful protesters was that they would come to expect to be placed on a database of domestic extremists.

And the court heard that the police had shown an “almost knee-jerk response” in presuming that anyone who turns up at a protest, regardless of what they do, “their name goes on the list”.

Shamik Dutta of Bhatt Murphy said: “The Court of Appeal will determine whether protesters forego the right to privacy if they engage in peaceful protest. If the appeal is successful, police forces will need to review the way in which they gather and retain information about protesters who have never committed any offence”.

Mr Catt’s lawyers did not argue against police officers placing protesters under surveillance where they thought there was a risk of disorder, but said that there was no reason to keep the information gathered once it became plain that the subject was not linked to any crime, either as a perpetrator or as a witness; as they said was the case with their client.

Keeping the dossier, they argued, was in contravention of his right to privacy.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission and Liberty have both been given permission to intervene. John Wadham, General Counsel of the ECHR, said: “We accept the need for there to be measures to ensure the safety of the public , but these need to be proportionate. The right to protest peacefully in public is a core human right and any measures that restrict this right should be subject to proper scrutiny.

“The Commission is concerned that the retention of material on this database, and the inadequate safeguards for its proper use and deletion, are an unlawful breach of the right to freedom of speech and freedom of protest. The police now need to take measures to ensure that the information they hold does not contravene the law.”

Mr Catt, who has been heavily involved with the Smash EDO campaign – among others, is appealing an earlier High Court ruling, which allowed police to keep photographs and other personal information belonging to him on the National Domestic Extremism Database. Last year, Mr Justice Irwin said that protesters registering their feelings in public had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The first case followed the refusal of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) to permanently delete all the data retained about Mr Catt, who found 66 entries about him had been made on the National Domestic Extremism Database, including one about his appearance.

His appeal is being heard in the High Court by the Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson, Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Tomlinson and continues tomorrow.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/take-peaceful-protesters-off-police-extremism-database-lawyers-tell-court-8471634.html

Retention of personal information on state database contravenes peaceful protesters’ human rights

29 January 2013

The Equality and Human Rights Commission will today (Tuesday 29th January) intervene in a human rights case at the Court of Appeal involving an 87-year-old protestor who says his right to privacy was breached by the police retaining information about him on a national extremism database.

Mr John Catt, who had not committed, nor been suspected of committing, any criminal offence, had been present at a number of political protests relating to a group called Smash EDO, which campaigns against the arms industry.

When he submitted a request to find out what information the police held on him, Mr Catt found 66 database entries about him had been made on the National Domestic Extremism Database, including one about his appearance. Fifteen per cent had nothing to do with the political protests.

The Commission is intervening in the case in its capacity as an independent expert on human rights to assist the court. It will argue the case raises significant issues about the legality of police monitoring of public protests and contravenes Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. This protects the private life of people against arbitrary interference from the state.

In its submission the Commission will say the national database is not subject to democratic oversight and contains reports about people who protest peacefully and without ever being suspected of a criminal offence.

The retention by the state of sensitive personal information of the sort stored on this database interferes with the right to privacy and potentially stigmatises innocent people in the eyes of employers and other organisations.

John Wadham, General Counsel, Equality and Human Rights Commission, said:

‘We accept the need for there to be measures to ensure the safety of the public , but these need to be proportionate. The right to protest peacefully in public is a core human right and any measures that restrict this right should be subject to proper scrutiny.’

‘The Commission is concerned that the retention of material on this database, and the inadequate safeguards for its proper use and deletion, are an unlawful breach of the right to freedom of speech and freedom of protest. The police now need to take measures to ensure that the information they hold does not contravene the law.’

Ends

For more press information contact the Commission’s media office on, 0161 829 8102, out of hours 07767 272 818.

Notes to Editors

• The case is: John Oldroyd Catt vs the Association of Chief Police Officers of England & Wales & Northern Ireland(1) & The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
• Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is a qualified right, which protects the private life of individuals against arbitrary interference by public authorities and private organisations such as the media. For more information see: Human Rights Review: Article 8

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is a statutory body established under the Equality Act 2006. It took over the responsibilities of Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission. It is the independent advocate for equality and human rights in Britain. It aims to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people, and promote and protect human rights. The Commission enforces equality legislation on age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation. It encourages compliance with the Human Rights Act and is recognised by the UN as an ‘A status’ National Human Rights Institute. It also gives advice and guidance to businesses, the voluntary and public sectors, and to individuals.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/2013/january/retention-of-personal-information-on-state-database-contravenes-peaceful-protesters-human-rights/