Hunt Monitors & the Data Protection Act

[Countryman]

The Data Protection Act states that any individual may demand copies of all the information (eg Video Footage) held about him by an organisation.

The DPA does not apply to private individuals, but does to organisations such as the LACS and RSPCA and Hunt Monitor organisations.

The part of the DPA in question is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/7

There is no exception in the law for organisations like the LACS-they have to comply like everybody else. The way I read the law, while they may charge up to £10 for administration, they must provide you with copies all the CCTV footage they have of you within 40 days or they are breaking the law.

This could be handy, not necessarily for ordinary Hunt Followers, but for the Huntsman and Masters of packs.

Does anybody have any ideas around this?

If I've misinterpreted the law, please let me know. But this could prove very helpful I think, not only to see just how much they know about you but also to see if you've been a victim of a visit by their "covert wildlife crime investigators".

 

[Post and Rail]

I have acted as a data controller under the act in he past, you are correct and this also applies to any other records they may hold.

 

[Shay]

The DPA does apply to all organisations - but they have to be able to identify you as a person. Usually by name. Something with just your image on would not be sufficient. If they had a file on you or some sort of written record with your name then that would apply. Otherwise you risk paying then £10 only to have them coming back with a nil return.

And of course this does predicate on them complying with a lawful request.....

 

[Alec Swan]

So are we to assume that if an "Organisation" holds data which refers to me, and I request to see that information, and they deny that they have a record of me, presumably they cannot then refer to any knowledge that they may have, which pre-dates my enquiry? Am I right?

Alec.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

I don't think its quite so straight forward. If the video is held by a private individual, the DPA would not apply ?

If it was held by an organisation, you'd have to prove that it was you in the video and you'd need written consent from anyone else on the video, all of whom would need to be identified and be happy for you to have a copy.

Then, if you obtained a copy and someone else was commiting an offence on the tape, you would have to report the incident to the police or find yourself guilty of withholding information.

 

[Alec Swan]

I don't think its quite so straight forward. If the video is held by a private individual, the DPA would not apply ?

If it was held by an organisation, you'd have to prove that it was you in the video .......

........

Para 1. That point has already been established.

Para 2. Without being able to view the video, just how would anyone be able to prove whether they were the subject?

Alec.

 

[MerrySherryRider]

Ah well, therein lies the problem with the DPA. Bit of a Catch 22.

 

[Countryman]

Surely though, if a Master/Huntsman wrote to them demanding copies of any CCTV footage of him, with a photo of himself, they'd have to comply? CCTV is accepted as information I understand, and a huntsman would probably be one of the only people on the film?

But I think CCTV counts as information, not just personal files? At least so a quick google search seems to indicate?

Just for the record though, there's no offence in the UK of withholding information from the police and you'd be under no obligation to report anything to the police.

But I wonder if it might be worth a few hunts asking their solicitors about this...

 

[Lizzie66]

Do you think it would be possible to use this video evidence to prove that whoever took it was on private property and therefore (if they didn't have permission) trespassing ?

Maybe a private prosecution could be brought ?

Just a thought.............

 

[Countryman]

The only problem there is that trespass, though against the law, is a civil crime not a criminal one so you can't get someone convicted of it per se. You can sue them if they cause damage, and you can arrest them if they try and disrupt or intimidate anyone, but you can't actually prosecute them just for trespassing. Which is admittedly a shame!

 

[Alec Swan]

The only problem there is that trespass, though against the law, is a civil crime not a criminal one so you can't get someone convicted of it per se. .......!

Filmed footage which is obtained by trespass, is not admissible in Court. Were I wrong, then those who've been filmed committing Slaughter Hall barbarities would be locked up.

Considering that, I still wonder at the guilty plea from the Heythrop. Lunacy.

Alec.

 

[Countryman]

Alec are you sure that that is the case? If it is....

Still, I'm fairly sure it wouldn't have affected the Heythrop case. Their monitors (who also bother our pack) tend to stick by their cars and very very occasionally go onto footpaths...I've seen the footage but I don't think any of them trespass and then use that film as evidence?