Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
R (Bridges) v CCSWP and SSHD
“2.2
In general, any increase in the capability of surveillance
camera system technology also has the potential to increase the
likelihood of intrusion into an individual’s privacy. The Human Rights
Act 1998 gives effect in UK law to the rights set out in the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Some of these rights are
absolute, whilst others are qualified, meaning that it is permissible for
the state to interfere with the right provided that the interference is in
pursuit of a legitimate aim and the interference is proportionate.
Amongst the qualified rights is a person’s right to respect for their
private and family life, home and correspondence, as provided for by
Article 8 of the ECHR.”
“2.3
That is not to say that all surveillance camera systems use
technology which has a high potential to intrude on the right to respect
for private and family life. Yet this code must regulate that potential,
now and in the future. In considering the potential to interfere with the
right to privacy, it is important to take account of the fact that
expectations of privacy are both varying and subjective. In general
terms, one of the variables is situational, and in a public place there is a
zone of interaction with others which may fall within the scope of
private life. An individual can expect to be the subject of surveillance
in a public place as CCTV, for example, is a familiar feature in places
that the public frequent. An individual can, however, rightly expect
surveillance in public places to be both necessary and proportionate,
with appropriate safeguards in place.”
“2.4
The decision to use any surveillance camera technology must,
therefore, be consistent with a legitimate aim and a pressing need. Such
a legitimate aim and pressing need must be articulated clearly and
documented as the stated purpose for any deployment. The technical
design solution for such a deployment should be proportionate to the
stated purpose rather than driven by the availability of funding or
technological innovation. Decisions over the most appropriate
technology should always take into account its potential to meet the
stated purpose without unnecessary interference with the right to
privacy and family life. Furthermore, any deployment should not
continue for longer than necessary.”
“3.2.3 Any use of facial recognition or other biometric characteristic
recognition systems needs to be clearly justified and proportionate in
meeting the stated purpose, and be suitably validated4. It should always
involve human intervention before decisions are taken that affect an
individual adversely. (Footnote 4 The Surveillance Camera
Commissioner will be a source of advice on validation of such
systems).”
“4.8.1 Approved standards may apply to the system functionality, the
installation and the operation and maintenance of a surveillance camera
system. These are usually focused on typical CCTV installations,