European Court decision on a breach of privacy by use of CCTV images

In the recent case of Peck v The United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that the disclosure by Brentwood Council of images of Mr Peck constituted a serious interference with his right to respect for private life, and the disclosure was not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued by the Council.

In 1995 images of Mr Peck walking down Brentwood High Street were captured by Brentwood Council's CCTV cameras without his knowledge. At the time Mr Peck was suffering from depression and attempted suicide (although the event was not captured on CCTV). Mr Peck was carrying a knife and the police were alerted, although Mr Peck was never charged. Later in 1995 the Council disclosed still photographs and footage from their CCTV system to various local newspapers, Anglia TV and BBC's "Crime Beat" programme to publicise the success of the Council's CCTV cameras. In each case Mr Peck's image was either not masked or masked inappropriately, and as a consequence he was recognised by his friends, neighbours and colleagues.

Although at the time Mr Peck was in a public street, the Court held he was not participating in a public event and was not a public figure, and in addition he had never been charged with a criminal offence. The Court held that the Council's actions were disproportionate and an unjustified interference with Mr Peck's private life, and as a result a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court found that the Council should have pursued other options, for example discovering Mr Peck's identity and obtaining his consent, or the Council could have effectively disguised Mr Peck's identity, or taken better care to ensure that the media properly disguised Mr Peck's identity, for example, by having a written contract regarding the disclosure.

Although Mr Peck had complained to the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission and the Press Complaints Commission (two of which upheld his complaint) and applied for judicial review, at the time the European Convention of Human Rights had not been implemented in the UK and therefore the Court held that he had not been able to obtain an appropriate national remedy. The Court found that the threshold for judicial review was too high for Mr Peck to obtain an effective remedy. As a result the Court awarded Mr Peck Euros 11,800 for distress and embarrassment, and Euros 18, 075 to cover the costs of both domestic and European proceedings. The case highlights that CCTV footage must be treated with care and in particular attention should be paid to individuals' right to privacy following the implementation of the European Convention of Human Rights, and the Data Protection Act 1998, in relation to how CCTV footage is captured, retained and used.

CCTV footage is personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the recording, use and disclosure of such footage must be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Information Commissioner has approved a Code of Practice in relation to the use of CCTV cameras, and although there a number of exceptions to the application of the Code (including CCTV used by employers to monitor their employees which falls under the Employment Practices Data Protection Code, or the use of personal security equipment in private homes, and surveillance activities covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act), the Code does have useful guidance on the capturing and processing of CCTV images to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

Contact point

For further information, please contact:

John Armstrong
CMS Cameron McKenna
T: +44 (0) 20 7367 2701
[email protected]

Lisa Benjamin
CMS Cameron McKenna
T: +44 (0) 20 7367 2328
[email protected]