Tribunal to hear landmark case over council policy on CCTV in taxis

A tribunal will this week hear the first ever surveillance case under the Data Protection Act as Southampton City Council seeks to challenge an ICO enforcement notice over its policy of requiring continuous audio-recording in all licensed taxi cabs.

The Information Commissioner’s Office served an enforcement notice on Southampton in July 2012, ordering it to stop the mandatory recording.

The council has required all taxis and private hire vehicles to install CCTV equipment since 2009.

The ICO claimed that the policy breached the DPA, on the basis 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”.

At the time the watchdog urged local authorities to “properly consider all the legal obligations on them” before requiring the installation of CCTV equipment. Audio recording should be very much the exception, rather than the rule, it added.

The enforcement notice, which can be viewed here, claimed that:

• Southampton had contravened the First Data Protection Principle in that it was processing personal data unfairly and unlawfully;
• The council was also processing sensitive personal data as defined by s. 2 of the Act; and
• None of the conditions for processing in Schedules 2 and 3 to the Act had been met contrary to the requirements of the First Data Protection Principle.

The notice argued that Southampton had given no satisfactory explanation to the ICO for its policy.

It also claimed that the recorded information could be: used for purposes other than those originally intended; subject to unauthorised or unlawful access, disclosure or other processing; the cause of distress to individuals using the vehicle; and used to affect licensing decisions about drivers.

The Commissioner said he was mindful as well that drivers and their passengers had the right under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to respect for their private and family life.

In lodging its appeal last August, Southampton said the safety cameras had cross-party support and had been used as evidence in securing convictions against a number of drivers and passengers.

The authority pointed to a number of cases where drivers had been arrested for alleged sexual assaults and no further action had been taken because of a lack of evidence.

Southampton also argued that the cameras offered protection to both drivers and passengers, and insisted that the data was kept securely.

Cllr Jacquie Rayment, deputy leader of Southampton, said on launching the appeal: “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 First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) will hear the case from 30 January to 1 February.

Philip Hoult