Retention of data on octogenarian protester “amply justified”

31 May 2012 by

Catt v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 1471 (Admin) – read judgment

Retention of data on a national database of material relating to a protester’s attendance at demonstrations by a group that had a history of violence, criminality and disorder, did not engage Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention.

The claimant, now aged 87, applied for judicial review of the decision of the defendants to retain data, seeking an order that, as he had not himself been engaged in criminality, any reference to him should be deleted from the allegedly unlawfully retained material.


 The data in issue was essentially comprised of records (or reports) made by police officers overtly policing demonstrations of a group known as “Smash EDO”, which carried out a long-running campaign calling for the closure of a US owned arms company carrying on a lawful business in the United Kingdom. Disorder and criminality had been a feature of a number of the protests along with harassment of the company’s staff. The defendant authority had retained data relating to the claimant’s attendance at various political protests on the National Domestic Extremism Database, and maintained by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit.

The claimant submitted inter alia that, whilst he did have a long involvement in political protest,  it was not for the state to build up a picture of him. The entries on the database systematically recorded a range of personal and sensitive personal data relating to Mr. Catt’s political views and activities, together with personal descriptions of Mr. Catt’s appearance and dress. The entries were not recorded on any database – this was the National Domestic Extremism Database.

The defendants on the other hand contended that Article 8 had not been engaged at all. The mere recording of information about, including the taking of photographs of, those involved in public demonstrations, did not engage the Convention; having regard to the public activity in which Mr. Catt had been engaged, the test for the engagement of Article 8 was not satisfied.

The judgment

The reports were made at the time when the claimant was engaging in the public activity of political protest. Therefore he could have no “reasonable expectation” of privacy and Article 8 had not been engaged (X v UK (application No 5877/72) [1973], Friedl v Austria (1995) 21 EHRR 83 and Friend v UK [2010] EHRR SE6). In the latter case the Strasbourg Court rejected as manifestly ill-founded the  applicants’ contention that the hunting bans in the United Kingdom constituted an interference with their private life.

To hold that Article 8 had been engaged and the claimant’s rights infringed would extend rather than apply the law as set out by Laws LJ in R (on the application of Wood) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] EWCA Civ 414. In that case, although the court was unanimous as to Article 8 being engaged, Laws LJ dissented from the majority opinion that the interference had not been justified. There are three qualifications to the “core right” of personal autonomy protected by Article 8:

First, the alleged threat or assault to the individual’s personal autonomy must (if article 8 is to be engaged) attain ‘a certain level of seriousness’. Secondly, the touchstone for article 8(1)’s engagement is whether the claimant enjoys on the facts a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’……. Absent such an expectation, there is no relevant interference with personal autonomy. Thirdly, the breadth of article 8(1) may in many instances be greatly curtailed by the scope of the justifications available to the state pursuant to article 8(2)…..”

Since the court  in this case decided against the claimant on engagement grounds, Gross LJ’s comments on infringement were obiter, but he stressed that he would have found against Mr Catt on justification grounds anyway. The claimant had closely associated himself with the protest group, which had a history of violence, criminality and disorder with a significant impact on the rights and freedoms of others going about their lawful business. It was only to be expected that the protest group would attract a robust police response. As such, when the defendants overtly compiled and retained intelligence reports they were doing what the public expected of them. Even when the protest campaign ended it might be justifiable to retain some, or all, of the information.  Therefore, even if Article 8(1) was engaged, the interference with C’s rights was “amply justified” under 8(2).


As he sets out on his analysis of the applicability of Article 8 to this case, Gross LJ observes that this provision is ” now a well-travelled area of our law, perhaps too well-travelled.”[23]. He goes on to cite, with approval, Laws LJ’s caveats about its reach – in Wood, Laws LJ “wisely cautioned” that the claims of Art. 8, however important to a free society, should not become “unreal and unreasonable”. Certainly the rapid development of a constellation of claims under Article 8 has attracted considerable criticism, but it has been the inevitable consequence of framing a right with such inchoate protected interests.  Perhaps this judgment marks the beginning of a trend in the opposite direction.

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

Related posts:


  1. Stephen says:

    I wonder how accurate the data held on this individual are? Without a right of access he will never know or be able to correct inaccuracies.

    1. Jon says:

      He does have a right of access (providing no exemption applies) under the DPA. In fact, I understand from the judgment that whilst there were difficulties in obtaining disclosure under the DPA, this was in fact how he found out about the information held on him. Moreover, the DPA imposes obligations on ‘data controllers’, including that the information being processed is accurate.

      1. Stephen says:

        Yes, thanks Jon.

        It does seem as if he was allowed access and that the DPA was used. I had not read the judgement at the time of my query. My reason for my query, prior to reading the judgement, is that personal data relating to criminal activities are exempt from the DPA’s S7 subject access right.

        Given that the police intelligence was gathered in the course of their crime fighting duties (allegedly) I feared this exemption would be used as a cover to decline the SAR.

        After reading the judgement, it seems he did not receive all of his personal data, due to third party reasons. This is a bit surprising because the Act says that where details of a third party’s identity are included in a subject’s personal data then the data controller MUST redact the third party’s details and release the data to the data subject.

        That said, if the data were joint data, ie not focused on any one particular individual, then problems may arise. The ICO holds the view that the Act,at least in general, is predisposed to disclosure rather than non-disclosure.

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: