Press notice by the Claimant/Appellant Andrew Wood.

Web: www.judicialreview.org.uk; Email:  judicialreview@gn.apc.org;

Thursday 21 May 2009

PRESS RELEASE

Appeal court ruling safeguards democracy and human rights

...

The human-rights case is brought by appellant/claimant Andrew Wood from Oxford,
who was the press officer at Campaign Against Arms Trade (a NGO opposing arms
exports) in 2005, and who attended the AGM with other members of staff. The
Appeal Court decided that the claimant was entitled to the protection of the
Article 8 under the The Human Rights Act 1998 which gives a right to respect
for private and family life, and states 'There shall be no interference by a
public authority with the exercise of this right ...'. The police are a public
authority. [3]

The judges decided that although the police photography was undertaken in a
public place, there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and the photography
could not be separated from its use i.e. the creation of a police file. The
judgment relied on the recent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights
regarding the retention of DNA profiles (Marper v UK) and other case law. The
judgment limits the retention of photographs and other information unless there
is a genuine on-going criminal investigation; there was no crime or further
criminal investigation resulting from the AGM of Reed Elsevier in 2005.

The police are reported to have said they will not appeal to the House of Lords
to contest the Court of Appeal ruling.

The Claimant, Andrew Wood said

“The Human Rights Act is part of the essential checks-and-balances which help to
ensure that we can properly participate in a democratic society without
repressive state intervention. It would be a blow for liberty and democracy if,
as some have suggested, it were to be abolished.”[4]

ENDS

CONTACT: Andrew Wood

EDITORS NOTES
The case, Wood (appellant/claimant) vs MPC for the policing of the metropolis
(respondent/ defendant) in the Court of Appeal (ref: 2008/1466) is described in
the court documents at  http://www.judicialreview.org.uk . The judgment will also
be posted at the legal reporting service here:  http://www.bailii.org/

This legal challenge is supported by human-rights groups, Campaign Against Arms
Trade, and the Press & Public Relations Branch of the National Union of
Journalists.

[1] The Appeal Court heard the case on 29 & 30 January 2009, following a
judicial review in the High Court, London in May 2008. The Appeal court judges
were Lord Justice Laws; Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Collins of Mapesbury.The
barrister acting for the claimant was Martin Westgate of Doughty Street
Chambers; The solicitors providing legal assistance were Alex Gask and Corinna
Ferguson.. The court costs for the claimant were met by Legal Aid. The remedy
sort by the claimant included the removal of his photograph from police
storage; no damages were requested.

[2] The legal action arose when the Metropolitan Police openly photographed and
followed members of the public attending the AGM of Reed Elsevier on 27 April
2005 at the Millennium Hotel, Grosvenor Square, London. The company, who
publish academic journals, had purchased Spearhead – a company which organised
arms fairs. Photographs and notes were made of those attending and stored on
police computers even though no one attending was arrested or charged with any
offence, and the AGM ended normally. The surveillance operation was part of
routine intelligence gathering by the police, who didn't claim to know the
claimant's identity prior to the start of its operation. When leaving the
meeting, the claimant and another CAAT staff member was repeatedly photographed
by the police from close-up, stopped, questioned and further followed. Police
accept that they undertook a surveillance operation, tried to obtain the
claimant's name by subterfuge, and stored information – including photographs -
on a computer system even though no illegal activity is alleged; there were no
arrests nor any criminal activity.

[3] The full text of the Article 8 'Right to respect for private and family
life', contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 is :

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home
and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of
this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the
economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime,
for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others.


[4] The judgment is 35 pages in length. Two of the judges found for the
claimant. Significantly, all three said that the claimant's rights under
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 were engaged. The judgment relies on the
law in coming to its conclusion but also makes this observation (paragraph 21 &
22):

'The notion of the personal autonomy of every individual marches with the
presumption of liberty enjoyed in a free polity: a presumption which consists
in the principle that every interference with the freedom of the individual
stands in need of objective justification. Applied to the myriad instances
recognised in the Article 8 jurisprudence, this presumption means that, subject
to the qualifications I shall shortly describe, an individual’s personal
autonomy makes him – should make him – master of all those facts about his own
identity, such as his name, health, sexuality, ethnicity, his own image, of
which the cases speak; and also of the “zone of interaction” (Von Hannover
paragraph 50) between himself and others. He is the presumed owner of these
aspects of his own self; his control of them can only be loosened, abrogated,
if the State shows an objective justification for doing so. This cluster of
values, summarised as the personal autonomy of every individual and taking
concrete form as a presumption against interference with the individual’s
liberty, is a defining characteristic of a free society. We therefore need to
preserve it even in little cases. At the same time it is important that this
core right protected by Article 8, however protean, should not be read so
widely that its claims become unreal and unreasonable. For this purpose I
think there are three safeguards, or qualifications ...'

PICTURE EDITOR NOTES
Photographs from a photo-call on the morning of Thursday 21 May 2009 when the
judgment was handed down are available from David Hoffman. Tel: 0788 1817 751/
020 8981 5041 or email:  photos@hoffmanphotos.com. The photographs show three
members of Campaign Against Arms Trade, including the Claimant/Appellant Andrew
Wood, in front of the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London displaying a two
meter long section of the Human Rights Act 1998 which describes a right to
respect for private and family life (Article 8).