Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

FRONT LINE FIRST - LAW

  • Comment
Out of the many rights bestowed upon individuals by the Human Rights Act 1998, the one that has consistently made t...
Out of the many rights bestowed upon individuals by the Human Rights Act 1998, the one that has consistently made the media headlines is the right to privacy.

A recent case shows the Data Protection Act 1998 can be a powerful stick with which individuals can beat councils if they fail to respect their privacy when they use their photographs and CCTV images.

In October 2001, at a High Court hearing, Newham LBC (without admitting liability) agreed to pay a disabled girl£5,000 in damages and approximately£50,000 towards legal costs after using her photograph without her permission.

Jacklyn Adeniji was shunned after friends saw her face on the front of a brochure setting out Newham's Aids strategy. The legal action cited breach

of confidence as well as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

This case comes as a salutary reminder to councils that they must be aware of privacy issues when taking and using photographs of people. No longer can they assume consent just because a person is within range of a camera.

In some cases express consent must be obtained, especially where a person is photographed in a context which may put him/her in a bad light. For example a simple photograph of a group of people walking in a high street may be okay without consent, but a shot of an individual walking into a sex shop may not.

It is not just photographs which have the potential to breach data protection and human rights legislation. A timely reminder of the privacy issues around this area come from a case declared admissible by the European Court of Human Rights (Peck v UK, May 15, 2001).

Geoff Peck felt so depressed he took a knife to Brentwood town centre and tried to cut his wrists. He was picked up on the council's CCTV system. The police were called and Mr Peck given medical assistance. The council released his images to the media without his consent. To his disgust, his images appeared in the local press and on television.

Mr Peck successfully complained to various media watchdogs for breach of privacy. He sued Brentwood BC. The High Court (pre-Human Rights Act) however rejected his claim, saying that distributing the images to the media was incidental to statutory provisions allowing councils to set up CCTV systems for crime prevention.

The case, yet to be ruled on by the European Court of Human rights, raises issues such as whether Mr Peck's right to respect for his private life was engaged by being filmed in public, the legality of any interference with his private life and whether it could be justified.

Both these cases show that, when it comes to CCTV and photographs of individuals, councils must be mindful of the data protection and human rights aspects. Those employed by councils to take, distribute or use such images must be trained to spot the legal issues.

www.dataprotection.gov.uk

Ibrahim Hasan

Principal solicitor, Calderdale Council

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.