NUJ welcomes Met Police confirmation that journalists’ data is no longer retained
The NUJ has welcomed confirmation from the Metropolitan Police that they no longer retain data relating to the journalists at the centre of a lengthy legal challenge over the collection and use of information held on police databases.
Legal background
The European Court of Human Rights' decision in Catt v United Kingdom is significant for any police database that records or retains information about members of the public, especially those engaged in journalism, protest or political activity. The 2019 judgment emphasised that the retention of personal data by police forces across Europe must be necessary, proportionate and subject to proper safeguards. The NUJ supported that case, providing evidence to the European Court of Human Rights in support of Mr Catt and noting the extensive police retention of data about some of its members.
Where the subject of a database entry is a journalist, the Article 8 right to privacy is likely to be reinforced by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), which protects freedom of expression and newsgathering. A police record identifying journalists, tracking their attendance at protests, recording their contacts or associating them with activist groups can create a chilling effect on journalistic work.
The case raises important questions about surveillance, privacy, press freedom and the limits of police powers - particularly where information relates to journalists’ attendance at demonstrations, contact with campaigners, newsgathering, trade union activity or political reporting.
Jason Parkinson, video journalist and NUJ member, said:
“I welcome the outcome of this 12-year case and the fact the Metropolitan Police have stated that the surveillance logs have been deleted on what was known as the Domestic Extremist Database.
“In my case it was 144 separate logs spanning the first eight years of my job as a video journalist, between 2005 to 2013, where I was labelled Extreme Left Wing (XLW) and some of the logs suggested I was also the subject of some covert surveillance.
“This is a win for press freedom and for all members of the press in the UK to be able to work freely without interference from the state, and it sends a very clear message that putting journalists under surveillance will not be tolerated.
“My police file data went back the furthest of the journalists in the case. Mostly in relation to my human rights work, the first disclosed was for photographing a protest against the forced deportation of asylum seekers that I had been tipped off about.
“We have to continue to push back collectively when our rights are infringed and defend press freedom for those gathering the news.
“This victory is our line in the sand, that this behaviour is not acceptable. The police have been held to account and our files deleted. Justice is never quick - this has been a long-fought case and I thank the NUJ and Shamik Dutta for helping us challenge this Stasi-like police behaviour.”
Jess Hurd, photographer and NUJ member, said:
“I remember very early in my career walking past the Home Office on my way to a job when I overheard a police officer say to a colleague, ‘that’s Jess Hurd.’ I found that deeply disturbing.
“What continued throughout my years as a press photographer has been deliberate targeting, obstruction, surveillance, detention, multiple assaults and being listed as a domestic extremist on a secret database.”
David Hoffman, photographer and NUJ member, said:
"Being labelled a domestic extremist by the Met when I was simply trying to report on public events was chilling. The tiny amount of data disclosed to me under the DPA was riddled with inaccuracies. The undisclosed data was in all probability equally inaccurate. The Met still won’t say what else it held on me, why it was gathered, for how long I’d been watched or who it may have shared my data with; this is a force with a well-documented history of secretly sharing data with commercial third parties.
“The knowledge of this Met surveillance still affects how journalists approach protest coverage and contact with campaigners and is a lasting harm. Deletion isn't accountability.”
Why retention matters
After Catt, the police cannot justify holding information about journalists merely because it was collected in a public place or because the journalist was present at an event involving protest or disorder. The police must be able to show a continuing and specific policing purpose for retaining the information and that must be reasonable and proportionate with regard to journalists’ rights under Articles 8 and 10 ECHR. Retention should be time-limited, subject to regular review, and deleted where it is no longer necessary. This means that the indefinite retention of sensitive information about journalists can be in breach of Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR, and be unlawful.
Assisted by Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, the NUJ challenged the police to disclose whether it held data about a number of its members. Under threat of further legal action, the Met has since confirmed they no longer hold any data about them.
Whilst this is the end of this particular case, the NUJ maintains a watching brief on the ongoing Public Inquiry into Undercover Policing. The union looks forward to the Inquiry’s long-awaited report to confirm whether undercover police officers at any stage gathered information on any of its members and, if so, for what purpose.
Shamik Dutta, Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, said:
“There was a time when the Met Police held over a hundred so-called ‘intelligence’ reports on my clients, labelling some “Extreme Left Wing”, noting protests they had covered and cataloguing social media activity. It has always been our case that none of that data was held for any legitimate policing purpose and so it is welcome that the Met has finally confirmed those records are no longer retained. Although this case has now concluded, we have yet to see the culture change within the Met that is desperately needed for journalists to undertake their vital work without unjustified police interference. That work is the cornerstone of any democracy and all the more important in the current age of disinformation.”
Laura Davison, NUJ general secretary, said:
“This is a major victory for journalists and journalism - and a testament to the persistence of our members and officials who have worked tenaciously over many years to achieve this outcome. The police cannot impede journalists in their work and the NUJ will closely monitor the situation as we continue to engage with the government and police bodies to ensure our members can carry on doing their jobs without fear of obstruction or victimisation.”