Diary of proceedings
All documents below are PDF files and require a PDF viewer, for example Adobe Reader (see www.adobe.com).
3 February 2010
The Government publishes its response to the report by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights called 'Demonstrating respect for Rights?' (see below, 14 July 2009). The response (page 18, para. 19 of 'Demonstrating Respect for Rights? Follow-up: Government Response') says '... HMIC in its report Adapting to Protest has recommended that Home Office should clarify the legal framework for the use of overt photography by police during public order operations and the collation and retention of photographic images by police forces and other policing bodies. In line with this recommendation, the Home Office will issue further detailed advice on Wood drawing on the summary of the implications of the judgment as set out in the HMIC report Adapting to Protest, Counsel’s advice sought by ACPO and the Metropolitan Police’s revised standard operating procedure on overt filming and photography. Compliance with Home Office guidance on Wood will be further underpinned by a Code of Practice on Public Order.'
19 November 2009
The Association of Chief Police Officers, which operates 'The National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit', issues a press release following the Court of Appeal judgment. Further responses to media inquires are published by them.
27 October 2009
The Guardian newspaper reports on changes to the retention of police surveillance photographs caused by the court ruling: 'The CO11 database, which initially contained 2,500 images, has been reduced to around 1,500 images after an internal audit found that 40% of the those [sic] being held were not compliant with the ruling'.
14 July 2009
The House of Lords, House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights publishes a report 'Demonstrating Respect for Rights? Follow–up. Twenty-second Report of Session 2008–09'. It documents the outcome of the Court of Appeal ruling (page 27, para. 56, 'Taking and retention of photographs'), and notes that 'The Home Office is working with ACPO to develop guidance on this issue and the Minister undertook to report back to us in the autumn. We look forward to hearing more from the Home Office in the autumn about the guidance to police forces on complying with the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Wood case.'
10 June 2009
The defendant confirms that they have destroyed all photographs of the claimant taken on 27 April 2005, as ordered by the Court of Appeal.
2 June 2009
A Government minister, Lord West of Spithead - The Home Office Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, announces in parliament that the police will review their procedures for photography and storage of images, and that they will manually go through their photographs and review them for compliance with the appeal court ruling.
21 May 2009
In the Court of Appeal, Justice Laws hands down the ruling (PDF) (or see BAILII) of the three judges; they find in favour of the Appellant/Claimant with one descenting. Press report by the BBC; Guardian; Dailymail; Press Gazette (Press Association copy). Photographs of the Appellant/Claimant and former colleagues at Campaign Against Arms Trade outside the Royal Courts of Justice by David Hoffman. Press release by CAAT. The Metropolitian police service issued a press statement. Subsequently, the police's solicitor confirms they will not appeal to the House of Lords/Supreme Court.
23 March 2009
Additonal submissions are accepted by the Court of Appeal. This follows revelations in the Guardian newspaper (6 March) that the police are storing thousands of records on political activists. Read letter to appeal court (6 March) requesting submission of new evidence.
28 & 29 January 2009
In the Court of Appeal: Justice Laws, Dyson, and Lawrence Collins hear an appeal against the High Court decision of Justice McCombe.
22 May 2008
1 & 2 May 2008
23 October 2006
Lord Justice Sedley, at the Court of Appeal, has ordered that there be a judicial review.
10 July 2006
In a hearing at the High Court, Mr Justice Charles refused permission for judical review. He complained about insufficient time to read the court papers, and ended the hearing with:'I simply refuse you permission'. See the court transcript (PDF)
28 April 2006
A court hearing considering the renewed application for judicial review is refused. The hearing was scheduled for one hour.
8 February 2006
A renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review is issued. See renewal grounds doument (PDF)
1 February 2006
Permission for judicial review was refused by Justice Silber at the High Court.
25 October 2005
A Claim was issued today.
13 July 2005
A letter is sent to the Metropolitan Police about the photography at the Reed Elsevier AGM. See the pre-action protocol letter (PDF)