Plymouth police fight bid to expose sites of 69 secret cameras
DRUG couriers and other criminals who travel to Plymouth could benefit from a landmark information rights ruling on the police's secret car-tracking cameras.
Senior officers at Devon and Cornwall Police have warned that any exposure of its covert network of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras would put the public "at risk" and damage investigations into organised crime.
-
If the ruling led to other forces being ordered to reveal the location of their cameras police fear criminals could create a national map to avoid detection.
A senior Devon and Cornwall officer told The Herald: "ANPR has been a fantastic weapon in our fight against crime. It has been a huge success, particularly in taking millions of pounds worth of drugs off the streets.
"If we are forced to reveal their locations, then other forces will have to follow, and that raises serious issues particularly around counter terrorism. Giving away that level of detail is frankly ridiculous. It will put the public at risk."
Devon and Cornwall Police has admitted it operates 69 cameras, split between fixed sites and vehicles, which "read" almost 79 million plates last year.
The network has delivered some spectacular successes, most notably in the fight against illegal drugs.
Only last month, a gang involving Essex and Plymouth criminals were found guilty of a major multi-million pound drugs smuggling operation
The gang, which included Stephen Procter, 38, of Ashford Road, Plymouth, and 41-year-old Shaun Battle, aged 41, of The Down in Bere Alston, were only nabbed after a car driven by courier Christopher Leader was "pinged" by an ANPR camera. Leader was stopped on the M5 in August 2009 for failing to insure his car. A search by officers of his BMW found five kilos of cocaine worth £250,000.
The locations of the cameras were requested under the Freedom of Information Act by Steven Mathieson, news editor at Guardian Government Computing, in July 2009.
The force refused claiming the ANPR map would "be likely to prejudice the prevention of crime".
It also blocked the move after an internal review, a decision which was supported by the Information Commissioner.
Mr Mathieson then appealed to the Information Rights Tribunal which last month found in his favour, ordering that the information be disclosed within 35 days.
Its ruling said: "The tribunal considers that there was, overall, a weak case made by the additional party (Devon and Cornwall Police) as to why it thought that disclosure of the information sought would be likely to prejudice policing."
Devon and Cornwall Police confirmed they are seeking leave to challenge the ruling in the Court of Appeal while the battle could ultimately be decided in the Supreme Court. A spokesman said: "The force believes that revealing the exact location of ANPR sites will seriously reduce their impact as a crime fighting tool."
34 Comments
View all
by david, plymouth
Wednesday, May 11 2011, 9:35PM
“@Tony, BW ... and others . The reason you need CCTV to protect you is because law and order and the punishments are not working .
It started to go wrong when the police thought they could do their job from patrol cars ... and not on foot . I am so glad that you now feel safe from crime because you are under the watchfull eye of a camera all the time . All in the name of terrorism or whatever . Great ... they catch a drug gang ... but in the meantime are surveying us all ,all of the time . Read todays news ? Even your meals on flights will now be recorded . We are being treated like cattle . And all in the name of whatever they decide . Wake up for christsakes”
by GAWker, Plymouth
Wednesday, May 11 2011, 9:30PM
“thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Drug-dealer-stay-city/article-1929548-detail/article.html
'PLYMOUTH City Council has won its legal battle to keep a notorious drug-dealer out of the city for many years.
Liverpudlian Darrell Daniels, right, appealed against a previous Asbo imposed by city magistrates banning him from entering Devon and Cornwall for 15 years.'
Why do Councils have to take action like that?
Shouldn't the justice system be dealing with criminals like that?
We don't pay for a justice system?
Can we claim a rebate for our lack of a justice system? We're not being short changed?”
by GAWker, Plymouth
Wednesday, May 11 2011, 9:28PM
“thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Drug-dealer-stay-city/article-1929548-detail/article.html
'PLYMOUTH City Council has won its legal battle to keep a notorious drug-dealer out of the city for many years.
Liverpudlian Darrell Daniels, right, appealed against a previous Asbo imposed by city magistrates banning him from entering Devon and Cornwall for 15 years.
Plymouth Crown Court heard that Daniels, 23, is currently serving a three-year sentence in Dartmoor Prison for possessing £40,000-worth of cocaine with intent to supply.'
So the cameras are to track the movements of people that really shouldn't be outside at all?
It's the John Malkovitch Prison Island UK as in the Johnny English film.
Can't these people be sent to learn mine disposal and sheep husbandry skills on the Falklands?
Or better still just live them all lose on South Georgia until they freeze to death and turn cannibal?”
by GAWker, Plymouth
Wednesday, May 11 2011, 8:04PM
“ANPR cameras are also used for enforcing the congestion charge.
How many of the fixed ANPR cameras could be used to implement 'congestion charges'?
Just swap out the fixed cameras for ones in cars?
Have multiple ANPR enclosures and just move the cameras around like they do with GATSOs? That idea isn't a goer due to the data wiring plumbing required by ANPR cameras?”
by Ed Forte, Teignmouth
Wednesday, May 11 2011, 7:42PM
“It is my hope that we, the people of this country will exert pressure on politicians to exercise common sense and repeal bad laws that favout the criminal and make new laws that allow the police to exercise their abilities to catch the criminals using whatever tactics may be neccesary to do so.
Speed cameras remind me and compel me to behave with discretion and to be a good citizen. Covert cameras hopefully will bring criminals to justice.”
by GAWker, Plymouth
Wednesday, May 11 2011, 7:01PM
“I'm not sure where the amount of intrusion and surveillance sits with the Mickey Mouse punishments dished out by the courts.
Society is the victim of the crime, and we're the victims again paying to keep the criminals inside.
Criminals will be offered the chance of a £40 fine and a course.
The balance between state surveillance of the non criminals seems far too instrusive and expansive compared to any punishments meted out.
RIPA? Did all those people really need the powers to snoop on everyone?
It's a backlash partially due too much surveillance by too many on those of us that aren't criminal?
We're all criminals or potential criminals until proven otherwise?”
by Tony, BW
Wednesday, May 11 2011, 5:36PM
“PS- but sometimes invasion of privacy can go to far, I read in the Daily Express a few days ago that local councils are selling copies of the electoral register to junk mail firms to get the names and addresses of people from. That's not good at all..”
by Tony, BW
Wednesday, May 11 2011, 5:33PM
“Any type of surveillance device makes decent law-abiding citizens feel secure; for example my street is covered by a permanent CCTV cam and gives me a feelgood factor..:)”
by GAWker, Plymouth
Wednesday, May 11 2011, 3:36PM
“If you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to hide?
How does that notion sit with Number 10 sending out letters with fake names on them for 'security reasons'?
There are more bogeymen and bogeywomen in Downing Street than in Afghanistan?”
by GAWker, Plymouth
Wednesday, May 11 2011, 3:26PM
“If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear?
So you didn't see my post below where Delroy Grant escaped from the police 7 times, once because they compared his DNA with that of someone with a similar name?
What about Bernand Gilbert, that pensioner up in Derbyshire that died after a brick was hurled threw his window after he'd had a row with a woman over a parking space?
The partner of the woman got the pensioners address from a dodgy police officer that looked it up on a computer system.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512272/Pensioner-parking-row-died-attackers-used-police-track-down.html
'Mark Forbes plotted a revenge attack and traced Mr Gilbert's address through then-serving officer, Pc Smith.
Pc Smith found the address by looking up Mr Gilbert's registration number on the Police National Computer.
He was fined £1,200 under the Data Protection Act and resigned from the force.'
Police officers and others within the public sector that have access to our data and personal information are somehow immune to same failings as everyone else?
Wasn't there a case in South Wales where a woman looked up the medical history of her daughter's new boyfriend as she didn't like him?
Data can be wrong. Data can be misused!
Because everything written down or appearing on an electronic display must be correct mustn't it?”