Data Protection – Islington CCTV System Declared Lawful

The Court found that Islington London Borough Council’s CCTV surveillance system operated on a lawful basis.

Case background 

The Claimant was an employee of one of Islington’s contractors. The Defendant was Islington London Borough Council.

The Claimant was captured on CCTV footage having an altercation with a member of the public. The member of the public lodged an official complaint. Islington Borough Council viewed the surrounding CCTV footage and handed it to the Claimant’s employers under the terms of an existing data-sharing protocol.

The Claimant alleged that Islington Borough Council had breached Article 5 and Article 6 of the UK General Data Protection Rules (GDPR) and that they had no lawful basis for processing his data and/or handing it to his employer.

Key considerations

The key issues in the case surrounded whether Islington Borough Council had a lawful basis to collect the Claimant’s data under Part 2 of the UK GDPR “general processing”.

The specific principles the claim touched upon were under Article 5 and Article 6 of the UK GDPR.

Article 5 looks at principles relating to the processing of personal data and Article 6 relates to the lawfulness of processing.

Courts decision

The Court found that Islington Borough Council had a lawful basis for collecting the Claimant’s data under Article 6(1)(e) which permits the collection of personal data where it is necessary for a public purpose. In this case, the Court found that Islington Borough Council’s purpose was conferred by Section 153 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The latter provides explicit power for public authorities to operate CCTV and require them to consider using their powers to reduce crime and disorder.

Furthermore, the Court found that Islington Borough Council had a lawful basis for the processing of the Claimant’s special category data under Article 9(2)(g), which states that it is lawful if the processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest.

The only point the Claimant succeeded on was the allegation that Islington Borough Council had not fully discharged its duty to process data transparently. The Court found that, under normal circumstances, Islington Borough Council identified the areas in which CCTV cameras operate using signage. When officers checked the signage in the relevant area, it was found that it had been removed.

Comment

The case is a welcome decision for Local Authorities that operate CCTV systems. The repercussions, if the Claimant’s case had succeeded, would have been damaging to Islington Borough Council and potentially surrounding local authorities as it would have brought an opening for thousands of claims by individuals who had their personal data collected through Islington Borough Council’s CCTV system.