Conceptualising surveillance harms in the context of political protest: privacy, autonomy and freedom of assembly Valerie Aston Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of East Anglia School of Law September 2018 Abstract This thesis considers the human rights issues arising from the use of police surveillance of political activists on demonstrations. Such protests are routinely subject to intensive forms of visible, or ‘overt’, surveillance, including the use of dedicated ‘intelligence gathering’ teams to monitor, photograph and film participants. The courts – both domestic and in Strasbourg - have generally taken the view that such measures will not, in themselves, amount to an interference with a person’s right to privacy or their right to freedom of assembly. This thesis takes issue with this approach and offers a new, and more developed conceptualisation of the harms to privacy and to assembly rights arising from police surveillance activities. The thesis draws on interviews with around 30 individuals, each of whom have been subjected to police surveillance in the context of political protest. Testimony from interviewees demonstrates a complex matrix of harms arising from overt surveillance practices which have not been adequately recognised within the human rights framework, nor have been adequately regulated by statute or common law. The thesis suggests a new conceptualisation of surveillance harms, which acknowledges the capacity of surveillance to result in a loss of autonomy, identity and integrity; and also to disrupt and obstruct the mobilisation processes which make protest possible. Harms must be recognised, it is argued, as arising both within the framework of privacy, and the right to freedom of assembly. Further, it is necessary for the courts to recognise that protest is an on-going process rather than a stand-alone ‘event’, and as such is vulnerable to disruption by surveillance activities. Surveillance must also be understood as being distinct from general observation by its position within a surveillance assemblage and a police ‘repertoire of control’ mechanisms in use during all stages of assembly mobilisations. Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Cases ...................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 10 The research question ....................................................................................................... 10 The background canvas: the extent of the problem .......................................................... 10 The aim of the thesis .......................................................................................................... 18 Structure of the thesis ....................................................................................................... 21 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 25 I The need for empirical research. ................................................................................. 25 II Thematization ............................................................................................................. 28 III Data Protection .......................................................................................................... 34 IV Research validity and the selection of research method .......................................... 41 V Sampling and interview design ................................................................................... 42 Chapter 2: The common law as a basis for overt surveillance .............................................. 49 Judicial approaches to the common law as a basis for overt surveillance. ....................... 51 The status of the constable ................................................................................................ 57 The common law powers of the Crown ............................................................................. 63 The Common Law Power to Prevent and Detect Crime .................................................... 69 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 91 Chapter 3: Overt police surveillance and Public Privacy ........................................................ 96 Theoretical conceptions of public privacy. ........................................................................ 98 A Taxonomy of Protest Surveillance Privacy Harms. ....................................................... 105 Surveillance harms: intrusion. ......................................................................................... 108 i) Stop and search .................................................................................................... 109 ii) Personal space ..................................................................................................... 109 iii) Collective space .................................................................................................... 111 Surveillance harms : identification and anonymity ......................................................... 113 i) Initial identification .............................................................................................. 115 ii) Recognition .......................................................................................................... 117 iii) Categorisation. ..................................................................................................... 119 Surveillance harms: pervasive and sustained ‘watching’. ............................................... 123 i) Repeated and frequent monitoring ..................................................................... 126 3 ii) Persistent monitoring .......................................................................................... 126 Judicial considerations of protest privacy ........................................................................ 129 1. Public Privacy in the UK Courts: A Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. .............. 130 2. Public Privacy and the ECtHR ............................................................................... 145 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 158 Chapter 4: Surveillance, political protest and Article 11 ..................................................... 162 Theoretical conceptions of protest and social movements. ............................................. 163 I Political opportunities .................................................................................................... 166 i) Surveillance and self-policing ............................................................................... 168 ii) Altering perceptions of opportunity. ................................................................ 169 II. Mobilisation structures and processes ......................................................................... 170 i) Social Networks .................................................................................................... 171 ii) Social capital ........................................................................................................ 173 iii) Access to organisational spaces ........................................................................... 176 III. Framing ........................................................................................................................ 179 Surveillance harms as a chilling effect on political assemblies and associations. ......... 182 Judicial approaches to surveillance harms within the framework of Article 11. ............. 185 The Scope of Article 11 and its application to Social Movement Processes. .................... 188 Defining interference ................................................................................................... 194 Surveillance as protection or restriction ...................................................................... 201 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 203 Thesis Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 206 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 221 4 Table of Cases UK Cases Adams v Scottish Ministers 2004 SC 665 Austin & Saxby v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, [2005] EWHC 480 (QB) Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and others [2005] UKHL 24 Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457 Catt v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] UKSC 9 City of London Corpn v Samede and others [2012] EWCA Civ 160 Countryside Alliance v Attorney General [2007] UKHL 52 Dutton and others v Persons unknown and others - [2015] All ER (D) 302 (Nov) E, T and Dave Morris v Chief Constable of Kent (2008) Unreported Fisher v Oldham Corporation [1930] 2 KB 364 Glasbrook Brothers v Glamorgan County Council and Others [1925] A.C. 270 Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [1995] 1WLR 804 Hosking