The Register is reporting that a CAAT activist has essentially lost a High Court case against the FIT Teams. (See link for full story - rest of this article quoted from that story)
Police-ordered photography of an anti-arms trade protester did not breach the protester's privacy rights, the High Court has ruled. It is one of the few times that such alleged intrusion by the state rather than the media has been the subject of a UK ruling.
Andrew Wood, a media co-ordinator for the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), claimed that the taking and storage of police photos was a violation of his privacy, but because they were taken in the public street and retained only for a specific purpose, the High Court rejected the claims.
...
"It seems clear from these cases that the mere taking of a person's photograph in a public street may not generally interfere with that person's right of privacy under Article 8," said the ruling. "More is usually required before that threshold is crossed, for example if there is the type of encyclopaedic press recording and subsequent publication of photographs of the comings and goings of a person, as there was of Princess Caroline in the Von Hannover case, or the taking and publication of photographs tending to expose medical confidences to the public gaze, as in the Campbell case."
The judge ruled that the taking of the photos did not infringe Woods' rights, and that the retention of the photos could not be considered an interference if DNA samples, a much more personal record of identity than a photograph, could be lawfully retained.
Andrew Wood, a media co-ordinator for the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), claimed that the taking and storage of police photos was a violation of his privacy, but because they were taken in the public street and retained only for a specific purpose, the High Court rejected the claims.
...
"It seems clear from these cases that the mere taking of a person's photograph in a public street may not generally interfere with that person's right of privacy under Article 8," said the ruling. "More is usually required before that threshold is crossed, for example if there is the type of encyclopaedic press recording and subsequent publication of photographs of the comings and goings of a person, as there was of Princess Caroline in the Von Hannover case, or the taking and publication of photographs tending to expose medical confidences to the public gaze, as in the Campbell case."
The judge ruled that the taking of the photos did not infringe Woods' rights, and that the retention of the photos could not be considered an interference if DNA samples, a much more personal record of identity than a photograph, could be lawfully retained.
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following 2 comments