Taxi Driver Online

Southampton taxi boss will fight on over spy cameras

A TAXI boss has vowed to continue his fight against compulsory spy cameras in cabs after a judge found they were “unlawful” but said that he could not overturn the council’s policy. A civil liberties watchdog last night joined the calls for the “taxicam” policy to be binned but Southampton City Council insisted that the controversial CCTV cameras, which record images and all conversations, were vital for the safety of passengers and drivers. The cameras cannot be switched off, even when cabbies are using their cars for personal reasons.

Cab firm boss Kevin May, who has paid out £30,000 to challenge the cameras in the courts, said that he was considering a judicial review after the council won an appeal over a district judge’s ruling against the cameras. He said: “I’ve been vindicated. The council won on a legal technicality. The council has brought in something that two judges have said is unlawful.”

Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, described it as absurd that the city council was pressing ahead with the cameras. He said: “Recording every conversation in the back of taxis treats everyone as a criminal but does not make anyone safer. “Southampton council should listen to the court and to the public and abandon this policy without delay.”

Mr May argued the surveillance from the cameras invaded the right to privacy for both the driver and passengers. He accused the council of wasting taxpayers’ money by subsidising their installation and said that there would be calls for compensation from the trade. The cameras cost up to £700 each, of which cabbies have to pay about £300.

About 450 of the 1,000 hackney carriages and private hire cars in Southampton have the cameras installed, which two years ago became a licensing condition. Recorder Stewart Patterson, sitting at Salisbury Crown Court, said that he had no jurisdiction to overturn the camera policy but if he had, he would have found it was “not lawful”.

The judgement said: “It was not reasonably necessary to install audio cameras on a permanent basis in all taxis in Southampton to pursue the council aims of preventing crime and disorder and improving safety.” It added that the recording of every conservation was “invasive”, “disproportionate” and a “violation” of article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to privacy.

Recorder Patterson added that an application to the High Court for a judicial review was the right way to challenge the policy. Council leader Councillor Royston Smith said last night: “I am still waiting for the official court judgement. However if it is the case that our appeal has been successful it is a victory for the safety of drivers and passengers in taxis in the city and the wider country.”

_________________
IDFIMH

And that's why you never ever go to court.

Of course it would have been nice if the anti-CCTV brigade had got proper advice in the first place that they were in the wrong f***ing court.

Even from the junior judge in the first place who heard the case.

_________________
IDFIMH

Big Brother Watch seem to be happy with themselves.

http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/ ... asive.html

Maybe these so-called experts could have advised Mr May to go to the proper court in the first place.

_________________
IDFIMH

My personal opinion: The Sound recording should be on permanently but the records only available to the Police or another suitable Authority.

Last time I was threatened with a knife was by a bloke saying that he had a "blade" in his hand and to draw off the road. I would never have been able to hit a Panic button, to turn the sound on, as he put his hand to my throat as he said that.

_________________
Don't dream it ~ Be it.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/940017 ... _unlawful/

a follow on for the above story

A court has no ruled that it is unlawful, a trainee judge has given his opinion that it is unlawful.

He may well be right, but currently the council have been deemed to have acted with the law.

_________________
IDFIMH

Some interesting comments from the BBC's aticle on this tale.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-16007201

If these comments are a correct record of what the junior judge said, then it appears, in his view, that councils have the right to mandate the fitting of CCTV, but he questions the conditions about audio and recording when not working.

In his judgement, he said: "If the policy were to be amended and the condition limited to visual recordings while the vehicle was in operation as a taxi, the policy would in our view be justified... and therefore lawful."

The 'our' bit in the judgement relate to the two JPs sitting next door to him.

And if anyone gets hold of a copy of the full judgement would they please put it up on here?

_________________
IDFIMH