Article 8 of the Human Rights Act1998 (HRA) provides that every citizen has a “right to respect for” their private life, their family life, their home and their correspondence” (HRA). Generally speaking, Article 8 provides for the enjoyment of a general right to privacy. More specifically, Article 8 states that no public authority will interfere “with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society”. In Catriona’s case, what Article 8 means is that the Metropolitan Police, as a public authority is per se prohibited from interfering in her enjoyment of privacy unless they have good reason to and that good reason is necessary in a democratic society.
In order for a court to entertain an interference with a right to privacy, they must first determine if the state action actually interferes with a privacy right under protection. While the HRA provides for a general right to privacy, it does not offer a specifically definition of privacy. However, the courts have made a number of interpretations of right to privacy under the HRA that are relevant to Catriona’s case. In Catriona’s case, the relevant privacy issues are right to a private life. Under the “Poole Judgement”, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal held that a right to a private life includes prohibitions against unreasonable state surveillance. Unreasonable surveillance can include but is not limited to appointing police personnel to follow, photograph and take notes of citizens. In addition, unreasonable surveillance can also include the use of CCTV to photograph or record the actions of citizens in public. The fact that the Metropolitan Police have a file on Catriona which includes pictures of her involvement in demonstrations and details of her activities over a fifteen-year period, clearly implicate that police actions implicated the protected right to a private life.
Even though the Metropolitan Police’s actions may have violated Catriona’s right to privacy, they may still be allowed if they adhere to one exceptions allowed in Article 8. As mentioned these exceptions are that they are in accordance to the law, necessary to a democratic society and in pursuit of a specific government aim. The relevant law in this case would be the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Under the act all covert investigations or surveillance upon a citizen must comply with the requirement of the act. Authorization to conduct surveillance must be proportionate and necessary to one of the following grounds relevant to this case: national security, detecting crime and preventing disorder, public safety. In other words, in order for the surveillance that was conducted on Catriona. To be valid under Article 8, the Metropolitan Police must have; (1) proof that she violated or was otherwise involved in one of the grounds relevant to her case (2) that the surveillance that was conducted was proportionate to her circumstances, and (3) that is was necessary to the resolution of the threat or issue that they perceived to be a threat.
Application of those standards to Catriona’s case and it is clear that she has a valid claim against the Metropolitan Police. Firstly, she has never been charged or convicted of a crime. Second, she is 80 years old and has been protesting for causes that she believes in for over 60 years. A right to protest is protected under Article 11 of the HRA. Lastly, 15 years of surveillance, clearly is not a proportionate exercise of surveillance activities. Based on these findings, the recommendation would be for Catriona to commence proceedings against the Commissioner of the Police and the Metropolitan Police for violating her enjoyment to the right of privacy as protected under Article 8 of the HRA.
Reference List
Appleby v. U.K., App. No. 44306/98 (2003).
Association of Police Authorities, 2009. Human rights guidance for police authorities. Belfast: Northern Ireland Policing Board.
Colvin, Madeleine., 2007. The human rights act and CCTV. Available from https://www.cctvusergroup.com/art.php?art=39
Curtice, M.J.R., and Sanford, J.J., 2009. Article 8 of the human rights act 1998: A review of case law related to forensic psychiatry and prisoners in the United Kingdom. Available from www.jaapl.org/content/37/2/232.full
House of Lords/Commons, Human Rights Joint Committee, 2009. Demonstrating respect for rights? A human rights approach to police protest. (HL533, Session 2008-09) London: TSO.
House of Lords, Constitution Committee, 2009. Surveillance; Citizens and the State. (HL523, Session 2008-09) London: TSO.
Human Rights Act 1998[online]. National Archives. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
Johanssen v. Norway (1996) 23 EHRR 33.
National Council of Civil Liberties, 2008. Police and protest – private property. London: Liberty.
Paton v. Poole Borough Council [2010] IPT/09/01 Available from www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Paton_v_Poole_borough_Council.pdf
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000[online]. National Archives. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents
Silver v. U.K. (1983) 5 EHRR 347.
Solove, D.J., Rotenberg, M. and Schwartz, P.M., 2006. Information privacy law. 2nd ed. New York: New York, Aspen Publishers.
Sunday Times v. U.K. (1972) 2 EHRR 245.
Taylor, Nick., 2002. State surveillance and the right to privacy. Surveillance and Society, 1(1). Available from www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1/statesurv
