Cases

Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (CA)

Held

Allowing the appeal;

(1) Article 8 was engaged. The mere taking a photograph in a public place was incapable of engaging Article 8, but the issue was whether the taking of pictures, along with their actual and/or apprehended use might amount to a violation of Article 8. On the facts the photographs were taken without W knowing why and to what use they may be put. This was a sufficient intrusion into W’s space to amount to an interference with Article 8.

(2) The interference with W's Article 8(1) rights were not justified pursuant to Article 8(2). The taking and retention of the photographs were in pursuit of a legitimate aim, namely the prevention of disorder or crime. However, the police's justification for retaining the photographs for more than a few days after the meeting did not bear scrutiny; once it had become clear that W had not committed any offence at the AGM there was no reasonable basis for fearing that he might commit an offence.

Also