Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
71.
R (Bridges) v CCSWP and SSHD
In R (Catt) v Association of Chief Police Officers [2015] AC 1065, the
Supreme Court considered the lawfulness of collecting and retaining personal
information, including a photograph of an individual who had demonstrated
against the operation of an arms manufacturer on a “domestic extremism”
database. In relation to the police’s power to obtain and hold such
information, Lord Sumption JSC held at [7]:
“At common law the police have the power to obtain
and store information for policing purposes, i.e. broadly
speaking for the maintenance of public order and the
prevention and detection of crime. These powers do not
authorise intrusive methods of obtaining information,
such as entry onto private property or acts (other than
arrest under common law powers) which would
constitute an assault. But they were amply sufficient to
authorise the obtaining and storage of the kind of public
information in question on these appeals.” (emphasis
added)
72.
Third, the police may make reasonable use of a photograph of an individual
for the purpose of the prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of
alleged offences and the apprehension of suspects or persons unlawfully at
large and may do so whether or not the photograph is of any person they seek
to arrest or of a suspected accomplice or of anyone else. “The key is that they
must have these and only these purposes in mind and must … make no more
than reasonable use of the picture in seeking to accomplish them” (per Laws J
in Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [1995] 1 WLR 804 at 810F).
73.
It will be apparent from the passages highlighted in the judgments in Rice and
Catt, that the extent of the police’s common law powers has generally been
expressed in very broad terms. The police did not need statutory powers, e.g.
to use CCTV or use body-worn video or traffic or ANPR16 cameras, precisely
because these powers were always available to them at common law. Specific
statutory powers were needed for e.g. the taking of fingerprints, and DNA
swabs to obviate what would otherwise be an assault.
74.
As we see matters, the only issue is whether using cameras fitted with AFR
technology to obtain the biometric data of members of the public in public can
be said to be an “intrusive method” of obtaining information in the sense
referred to by Lord Sumption JSC in Catt (at [7] above) and, therefore, outwith the common law powers of the police. In our view, Lord Sumption was
clearly referring to intrusion in the sense of physical intrusion or interference
with a person’s rights vis-à-vis their home or interference with their bodily
integrity. He described “intrusive methods” as including “entry on private
property or acts… which would constitute an assault”.
75.
A warrant is required to allow the police to enter someone’s private property
since otherwise, the act of entering someone’s private property without
permission would amount to a trespass,. Equally, since the act of taking
16
Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras