Will publishing photos of alleged rioters infringe their human rights?

11 August 2011 by

In the wake of the recent violence in cities across England, the police have been releasing photographs of individuals in an appeal to the public for assistance in identifying them and bringing them to justice.

As the crisis has developed, politicians and police spokespeople have professed a strong intention to ensure that all the rioters and looters face the consequences of their actions. As of this morning, in London alone 888 people have been arrested and 371 people have been charged with offences relating to their involvement in the riots, and courts in London, Manchester and Solihull have remained open through the night in order to process these cases as swiftly as possible. Yet with the number of people involved likely to be in the thousands, there are many more who remain unidentified.

To assist with identification, the Police have been posting photographs and CCTV images of people it would like to talk to. In a statement, Metropolitan Police Commander Simon Foy said:

Those who have or intend to go out and commit violent, criminal acts should be warned. We will have photographs and evidence that we will use to identify you and bring you to justice.

Operation Withern, which is tasked with investigating the disorder in London, has now set up a dedicated webpage containing images and appealing for information. It has also made use of the photo-sharing website Flickr.

The human rights question raised by this is whether or not it is compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which provides for the right to respect for the private life, but also permits infringement of that right if in accordance with the law and, for example, to protect the public. It is an issue which has periodically arisen, particularly when convicted criminals have been released from prison. In 2007, police in Suffolk attracted the scorn of the Daily Mail when they refused to provide details and pictures of three “career criminals” who had completed their sentences and were about to be released into the community. In regards to the current disorder, the Prime Minister has made his view on the issue clear:

Picture by picture these criminals are being identified and arrested and we will not let any phony concerns about human rights get in the way of the publication of these pictures and the arrest of these individuals.

We set out some of the legal background to this issue in a previous post about the rights of burglars. As was explained in that post, pictures of individuals might well constitute private information, the release of which could breach confidence or their human rights, but the law also allows for the reasonable use of such information for the purposes of the detection and prevention of crime. In Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [1995] 1 WLR 804, Laws J considered a police practice of providing photos to shopkeepers of individuals known to be causing trouble in the area so that they could recognise them. The traders were told not to display the photographs and show them only to staff. He said at page 810:

In my judgment, the use which the police may make of a photograph such as this is limited by their obligations to the photograph’s subject as follows. They may make reasonable use of it 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. They 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, as I have said, make no more than reasonable use of the picture in seeking to accomplish them.

This is a nice and succinct summary of the legal position, and it is important to note that the decision pre-dates the Human Rights Act 1998, and was based upon an assessment of UK domestic law. It is therefore to be hoped that if any questions are asked about the human rights compatibility of publishing these photographs, the HRA is not unfairly maligned.

Given the scale of the unrest and the nature of the photographs, it would be difficult to argue that posting these pictures for the purpose of identification would infringe the human rights of the photo subjects. Publishing such images might be the only way of identifying many of the culprits.

In any event, the police are not alone in their efforts. Members of the public and community groups, who unlike the police are not bound by the provisions of the HRA, have also been endeavouring to identify rioters through the publication of photos on websites such as “Catch a Looter” an “Identify the London Rioters”. In this way, social media, which has been identified as a key tool used by the rioters to coordinate their activities, is also being used to help clean up the mess.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. Stephen says:

    @ Graham

    Photographs that have as their focus an individual who can be identified may well breach the Data Protection Act 1998 and hence by extension the HRA. However, the DPA contains complex exemptions in respect of personal data used for journalistic or crime detection purposes.

    In Durant v FSA 2003 the Court of Appeal clarified the use of CCTV images. An individual’s image appearing as part of a panoramic view of a crowd does not constitute personal data. If the CCTV operator zooms in so that an individual becomes the focus then the image may constitute personal data. Whether it is lawful to further process that data depends on the purposes for which the data are to be processed. If for the prevention or detection of crime then no breach of DPA should occur. If for any other reason then an infringement of that person’s privacy may have occurred.

    There was a famous case in the last decade of a man in Essex brandishing a knife on the streets. The footage was televised and used to recruit for the Police Service (so it was ostensibly used for Crime Prevention purposes). The man was in fact mentally ill and not intent on a criminal enterprise. The ECtHR found his HRA Article 8 right to privacy had been infringed. The images were not of a man intent on committing criminal acts and so his images had been used falsely.

    Hence publishing photos can infringe the DPA and HRA..

  2. ObiterJ says:

    Other factors going to the question of “reasonableness” would include the seriousness of the offence(s) under investigation and the general circumstances in which they were committed. I would suspect that any arguments about unfair process would receive short shrift when all things are considered.

    I would hope that right-thinking people who recognise any of these alleged offenders will report them to the Police. They really need to be brought to whatever justice the law permits in their individual cases.

  3. Graham says:

    Publishing photos does not infringe one’s human rights. If it did all the paparazzi would have been out of work years ago.

    Next time, try to think of a sensible question to ask.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: