Police Powers to Retain Personal Data Relating to Public Activities
| Author | Joe Purshouse |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018315597851b |
| Published date | 01 August 2015 |
| Date | 01 August 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Supreme Court |
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Police Powers to Retain Personal Data Relating to Public Activities:
R (on the application of Catt) and R (on the application of T) vCommissioner of Police of
the Metropolis [2015] UKSC 9
Keywords
Police powers, privacy, data retention, public demonstration, personal information, Article 8 ECHR
The police have various powers at common law, and under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), to sys-
tematically collect and retain electronic data about individuals. Under s. 7 of the DPA, an individual can
make a request to access such personal data held about them by the police. The issue in both cases was
whether the retention practices of the police are lawful, as the appellant Commissioner argued, or in vio-
lation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Mr Catt
Mr Catt, a 91-year-old man residing in Brighton, has frequently participated in public demonstrations
and claimed to have been a part of the peace movement since 1948. Despite having been arrested on
suspicion of obstructing the public highway at two such public demonstrations in the past, he claimed
his protests were peaceful. However, between 2005 and 2010, Mr Catt was regularly involved in
demonstrations organised by a group called Smash EDO, described in the witness statement of Detec-
tive Chief Superintendent Tudway of the Metropolitan Police as one of the most violent protest groups
in the UK. While it was acknowledged that not all those who attend demonstrations organised by
Smash EDO carry out acts of violence, harassment and intimidation, the evidence was that some do
partakeinsuchacts.
Where a public demonstration is part of a long-running campaign which gives rise to frequent crime
and disorder—such as those organised by Smash EDO—the police commonly retain information about
attendees and incidents on Information Reports. In some cases, these Information Reports are collected
together to form ‘nominal records’ of particular individuals, which are retained on the National Special
Branch Intelligence System. Mr Catt made an access request under s. 7 of the DPA for information relat-
ing to him, and found out that he appeared in a number of Information Reports relating to his involve-
ment in Smash EDO protests and other protests in which he participated. Most of the Reports recorded
information about Mr Catt’s presence at the events, his address and date of birth, and, in some cases,
information about his appearance. At the time the proceedings were initiated, Mr Catt did not have a
nominal record, but Information Reports about Mr Catt, and the nominal records for other persons that
incidentally mentioned Mr Catt, had been retained. Mr Catt initiated proceedings claiming that his rights
under Article 8 of the ECHR had been violated as a result of this retention, which, in the first instance,
failed (Catt vAssociation of Chief Police Officers [2012] EWHC 1471). Many of the records were sub-
sequently deleted during a review of the database in 2012, and the number of nominal records and Infor-
mation Reports mentioning Mr Catt was reduced from 60 to 2.
The Journal of Criminal Law
2015, Vol. 79(4) 242–245
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018315597851b
clj.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial