There is a wide debtate ongoing about the use of surveillance cameras worn on the person which are used in a covert fashion. The common purpose used by a Council would be to help in test purchases.
The proportionality argument of this is easily made when it is to investigate when a juvenile is buying a knife from a shop-keeper.
To a layman, if someone of 15 buys a knife and leaves the shop, it should be a clear offence. However it may be argued by the shop-keeper than some infringement incurred. Not all cases are won.
In a small shop, a second person can not easily watch either inside or outside (it would arouse suspicion, or may raise fear in the mind of the shopkeeper (robbery)).
As the juvenile is attempting the purchase on one occasion, they are not a CHIS. However the person is being covert and will be recording the conversation (which should be to ask for a knife, pay for it and leave).
Can you provide guidance as to issues which should be considered. The ICO for example does not permit the recording of conversations, and all I have seen so far is Police guidance on using body worn cameras with sound. It is clear the CCTV policy needs to be updated for not only bodycams (or headcams) but also the sound element.
| BACK | RETURN TO INFORMATIONLAW.ORG.UK |