On 27 April 2005, the claimant - Andrew Wood – attended the Annual General Meeting of Reed Elsevier, a publisher of academic, educational and scientific books and journals. Reed had recently purchased a company which organised arms fairs, including the bi-annual arms fair in Docklands, London called DSEi (Defence Systems & Equipment International Exhibition). The claimant worked for Campaign Against Arms Trade, which opposes arms exports, as their media co-ordinator. He was one of a number of shareholders from CAAT attending the AGM in the Millennium Hotel, Grosvenor Square, London.
CAAT had liaised with the Metropolitan Police prior to the AGM; it was agreed that two representatives would leaflet shareholders at the hotel entrance. No other demonstration took place outside the hotel.
The AGM started with an address from the directors to a very sparsely attended meeting. The AGM was interrupted when two women, who were not CAAT staff, chanted slogans opposing arms. After they'd been ejected by security guards then the meeting continued as normal. Later, shareholders were invited to ask questions of the Board; the decision by Reed to purchase a company organising arms fairs was contested.
At the end of the AGM, the claimant left with the research co-ordinator of CAAT, Ian Prichard. After leaving the hotel they stopped to talk with one of the CAAT staff who'd been leafleting. The first photograph exhibited by the police shows this conversation; the association apparently triggered the subsequent surveillance of the claimant and Mr Prichard. The police do not claim they knew of the claimant's employment by CAAT prior to the surveillance.
As the CAAT staff conversed, a police vehicle drew up beside them and an officer got out to photograph them. He stood close-by, repeatedly and intrusively photographing them. The police claim that one of the women who'd been ejected from the AGM associated with the group, which is denied.
The claimant and the research co-ordinator left the Square to walk to the tube station nearby, followed by police officers on foot. A police vehicle drew-up and a number of officers stopped the two men. They were repeatedly photographed and questioned. The research co-ordinator answered some of the police questions but the claimant replied that he was going about his lawful business and the two walked to Bond Street underground station, again followed by police. After passing through the ticket barriers at the station, the claimant was asked for his ticket by one of the underground staff. The police admit that they asked the underground staff to examine the claimant's ticket to obtain his details. The pursuit ended when the two men continued to the station platform.
The police have provided exhibits of officer's notebooks and computer records showing the claimant and others were under police surveillance as they left the AGM. Photographs of the claimant and other CAAT staff were also filed. Police denied that the claimant's photo was placed on a police 'spotter-sheet' for identification purposes, although on other occasions they have undertaken this practice.
The claimant believes the police actions are in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights, in particlar Article 8 - respect for private and family life; Article 10 - freedom of Expression; Article 11 - freedom of assembly and association; and Article 14 - prohibition of discrimination. The full text of the European Convention on Human Rights can be found at the appropriate page of the European Court of Human Rights
All these documents are PDF files and require a PDF viewer, for example Adobe Reader (see www.adobe.com).
Appeal Court judgmentAppeal Court judgment by Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Dyson, and Lord Collins of Mapesbury (PDF) (May 2009)
Court order (PDF) (May 2009)
Documents for Appeal Court hearing
Appellant/Claimant's grounds for application for an appeal court hearing (PDF) (July 2008)
Appellant/Claimant's supplementary skeleton argument for Appeal Court (PDF) (January 2009)
Appellant/Claimant's skeleton argument for Appeal Court (PDF) (July 2008)
Appellant/Claimant's third witness statement (PDF) (June 2008)
Respondent's/Defendant's skeleton argument (PDF) (January 2009)
Exhibits. These items were submitted to the Court of Appeal: letter from National Union Journalists to the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (28 May 2008); article 'Is this what a police state looks like?' by Claire Provost published in a New Statesman weblog (3 May 2008); article 'Harass a hoodie: how Essex police take surveillance to the streets' by Paul Lewis published in Guardian newspaper (30 May 2008).
Additional submissions. These items were accepted by the judges on 23 March 2009 (several weeks after they had retired to consider their ruling on 30 January): additonal submissions for the Appellant/Claimant (PDF) , additonal submissions for the Respondent/Defendant (PDF).
High Court judgmentHigh Court judgment by Justice McCombe (PDF) (May 2008)
Judge's order (PDF) (May 2008)
Documents for High Court hearingBarrister's note regarding decision of the Court of Appeal in Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Limited  (PDF) (May 2008)
Skeleton argument (PDF) (April 2008)
Claimant's first witness statement (PDF) (October 2005)
Claimant's second witness statement (PDF) (February 2007)
Ian Prichard's witness statement (PDF) (September 2007)
Grounds for application to apply for Judicial Review (PDF)
Exhibits. 'Exhibit AW1' referenced in claimant's second witness statement (February 2007)
Solicitors Corinna Ferguson and Alex Gask (at Liberty) were acting for the claimant, and barrister Martin Westgate of Doughty Street Chambers was acting as Counsel.