Police denied TV footage of Dale Farm evictions

24 May 2012 by

BSkyB and another, R(on the application of) v Chelmsford Crown Court [2012] EWHC 1295 (Admin) – read judgment

The police failed to satisfy the court that their need for footage taken by TV organisations was likely to be of substantial value to criminal investigations and therefore would be a justified interference with the rights of a free press under Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention.

Sky, BBC, ITN etc. succeeded in quashing an order to produce of 100+ hours of video footage to Essex Police of  the Dale Farm protesters on the grounds that there were no “reasonable grounds” for believing that the footage of over 100 hours included material likely to be of substantial value to the investigation.

Background facts

After the Dale Farm evictions and the disorder that ensued, the police sought an order for the recordings taken by the claimant organisations to help identify those who had committed indictable offences when attempting to prevent the eviction.  They submitted that it was necessary, not least for the prevention of similar disorder on future occasions, to identify as many as possible of those who committed indictable offences in attempting to frustrate the lawful enforcement procedures. Production orders were duly made by Chelmsford Crown Court, defendant in this action. The claimants applied for judicial review of the production orders made against them, with the police joining the proceedings as an interested party.

The media organisations submitted that it was a speculative exercise and there had been insufficient evidence for the judge to conclude that the recordings were likely to be of substantial value to the police investigations under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Sch.1 para.2(a)(iii), and therefore the orders constituted an unjustifiable interference with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10. They contended, in particular, that  there had been an increasing number of police applications for wide-ranging production orders in circumstances of this kind:

Reference was made, for example, to student protests in 2010 and the notorious riots which took place in August 2011. There is widespread concern that such applications are being made, impermissibly, on an unfocused and scattergun basis. This case is said to provide an example where the production orders sought did not relate to specific indictable offences, alleged to have been committed at particular times and at particular places, but rather to “fishing” for any evidence there might be of such offences occurring over the many hours of visual recording.

The judgment

The default position was the claimants’ right to freedom of expression. Therefore the burden was on the police to demonstrate that the degree of interference and the wide scope of the production sought was necessary and proportionate because of the substantial value attaching to the recordings in the context of the investigation.   Indeed, both under PACE and the Convention, in seeking material from the press for this purpose

There is a burden to be discharged and disclosure orders against the media, intrusive as they are, can never be granted as a formality.

Whilst there was clearly a real public interest in tracing any of those persons who were involved in public disorder or violence, that had to be set against the level of interference with the claimants’  rights under Article 10 rights.

A “close and penetrating examination” of the facts advanced by way of justification is required (Lord Hope in R v Shayler  [2002] UKHL 11). Contrary to this, the judge below, in granting the production orders to the police, had taken a “compendious, not to say formulaic”, approach towards his deliberation on the access conditions. No reasons of substance are given as to why any of this footage, let alone all of it, would be of substantial value to the outstanding police investigations. There was nothing to justify such his conclusion that access should be given to this material:

There was no intense focus upon, or scrutiny of, any evidence of substantial value, because there was none. There was no material to enable the judge to carry out the necessary balancing exercise [of public interest versus the claimants’ Article 10 rights].

Further, the judge had failed to give any sufficient weight to the inhibiting effect of production orders on the press.

The police’s reluctance to reveal what information they had meant that the media organisations were denied a fair opportunity to demonstrate why their recordings were unlikely to be of any assistance. There had to be cogent evidence as to what the footage was likely to reveal, how important such evidence was to carrying out the investigation, and why it was necessary and proportionate to order the intrusion by reference to other potential sources of information. That burden had not been discharged, and accordingly the judge was unable to justify ordering disclosure against the claimants and the production orders were quashed.

Related posts:

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: