Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | David Carson |
| Published date | 01 March 2008 |
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/pojo.2008.81.1.429 |
| Subject Matter | Recent Judicial Decisions |
DAVID CARSON
Reader in Legal and Behavioural Studies, University of
Portsmouth
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Police Photographing Members of the Public Who Are Not
Offending
Andrew Wood v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis,
[2008]
EWHC 1105 (Admin). Divisional Court
22 May 2008
European Convention of Human Rights, Articles 8, 10, 11
and 14; policing; public order; surveillance; photographing
the public; police retention of photographs
This was an application for judicial review where, because there
had not yet been a trial of the disputed facts, the claimant’s
version was assumed to be true. It was heard by a single High
Court judge, Mr Justice McCombe, although permission to apply
had been granted by Lord Justice Sedley, who sits in the Court of
Appeal.
The facts
A number of members of the Campaign Against Arms Trade
(CAAT) had purchased shares in Elsevier PLC (known as
‘Reed’), as it was the parent company of Spearhead Exhibitions
Limited (known as ‘Spearhead’). Spearhead organised annual
exhibitions for the arms trade, at which there had been demon-
strations and disorder. Reed’s buildings had also been damaged.
The police were given the names of people who had recently
bought shares in Reed and who would therefore be entitled to
attend the company’s AGM. The police anticipated disorder at
the AGM and made arrangements which included tasking a
civilian, albeit clearly identified as with the police, to take
photographs.
The claimant, who was employed as the media coordinator
of CAAT, attended the AGM of Reed and asked one unobjec-
tionable question. However, two members of CAAT were ejec-
ted from the meeting because they were chanting. Upon leaving
the meeting the photographer took pictures of the claimant. The
sergeant in charge of an evidence-gathering group of officers
decided it was important to discover the claimant’s name. He
82 The Police Journal, Volume 81 (2008)
DOI: 10.1358/pojo.2008.81.1.429
To continue reading
Request your trial