Council takes ICO to Information Rights Tribunal over cameras in taxis

Southampton City Council has lodged an appeal against an enforcement notice issued by the Information Commissioner prohibiting the mandatory recording of passengers’ and drivers’ conversations in taxis.

The city’s taxis will continue to be required to use the equipment ahead of the hearing at the Information Rights Tribunal, which is expected to take place in Spring 2013.

Since 2009 the local authority has required all taxis in Southampton to install cameras and keep them switched on at all times.

In a statement the local authority said: “The safety cameras have cross-party support from the city council and have been used as evidence in securing convictions against a number of drivers and passengers. In other cases, had a camera been present, the captured evidence would have been of great importance.”

Southampton cited a number of cases where drivers had been arrested for alleged sexual assaults and no further action had been taken due to a lack of evidence.

“On each of these occasions the allegation was that the sexual assault was carried out by the licensed driver and occurred inside a licensed vehicle,” it said.

The local authority said it would use this evidence – as well as other examples of where fitted cameras had helped show the nature of an incident – in its appeal.

Southampton also pointed out that the cameras captured video and audio and could not be switched off by the driver, “meaning that protection is equally offered to both driver and passenger”.

The council insisted that the relevant data was encrypted and kept securely and only accessed if there was a complaint made against an individual or if the police required evidence in a criminal investigation.

Cllr Jacquie Rayment, deputy leader of Southampton City Council, said: “What has not been acknowledged in the process so far is the lengths we go to to protect the privacy of all drivers and passengers. No one sees these videos unless there is an incident that needs investigating and in those cases the footage and audio becomes crucial independent evidence. The very fact that the cameras capture everything is a valuable deterrent against attacks, both verbal and physical.

“We will continue to review the use of cameras in taxis although the message we are receiving locally is that both drivers and passengers value them. This appeal is an opportunity for us to show the court that we are not using them to snoop on innocent activity, but to deter and take action on criminal offences.”

The Information Commissioner’s Office served its enforcement notice on Southampton in July. The watchdog warned local authorities that they must consider all legal obligations on them before requiring the installation of CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles.

Christopher Graham, the Commissioner, added that audio recording of conversations should also be “very much the exception, rather than the rule”.

The ICO decided that Southampton’s policy breached the Data Protection Act, taking the view that the recording of all conversations was disproportionate “given the very low number of incidents occurring compared to the number of trouble free taxi journeys”.

The watchdog’s move came just weeks after Oxford City Council suspended implementation of a similar policy to that put in place by Southampton.

The ICO took preliminary enforcement action, claiming that the recording of conversations in taxis in Oxford would also breach the DPA.

Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said: “By requiring taxi operators to record all conversations and images while the vehicles are in use, Southampton City Council have gone too far.

“We recognise the council’s desire to ensure the safety of passengers and drivers but this has to be balanced against the degree of privacy that most people would reasonably expect in the back of a taxi cab. It is only right that the privacy of drivers and passengers is respected.”

Graham argued that this was particularly important as many drivers would use their vehicles outside work.

“While CCTV can be used in taxis, local authorities must be sensible about the extent to which they mandate its use, particularly when audio recording is involved,” he said.

The ICO said that:

• For CCTV equipment in taxis, images should only be recorded “where it is clearly justifiable”;
• Audio recordings should only be made on very rare occasions, “for example where there are a high number of serious incidents and where recording is triggered due to a specific threat in a taxi cab”.

Philip Hoult