A road sign showing a traffic camera warning
getty
A U.K. court ruling has upheld the public’s right to submit dashcam and helmet-cam footage to police, after a retired solicitor attempted to sue a “caped crusader” cyclist who filmed her using a mobile phone while driving.
The judgment, handed down by a judge at Newcastle County Court, found that the cyclist’s actions did not breach data protection laws. The solicitor had argued that the footage was unlawfully obtained and that the cyclist—who submitted the video to police via the National Dash Cam Safety Portal—was acting as an unregistered “data controller.”
Had the claim succeeded, the judge warned, it could have required millions of motorists and cyclists to register with the U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and pay an annual fee, under threat of criminal sanction. The court’s decision, the judge said, avoids a “chilling” effect on the submission of road traffic evidence by members of the public.
The case is subject to an anonymity order, but I have obtained the judge’s decision in full. The decision was delivered in March, but with the involved parties now allowed to discuss it.
The case concerns an incident that occurred in Whitley Bay in July 2022. Helmet-cam footage showed the solicitor holding a mobile phone while behind the wheel of a car. She was subsequently convicted, fined, and handed six penalty points.
In a 50-page ruling, which has not been published, the judge emphasised the growing role of citizen-sourced evidence in policing, noting: “Many private motorists and cyclists use dashcams and body-worn video equipment.” He said it was clear that filming road crime from public highways—including with smartphones—is both legal and valuable to police investigations.
“Bringing the activity of responding to police requests for video footage within the scope of data protection law would have a chilling effect on the public’s willingness to respond,” said the judge in his lengthy decision.
The solicitor, who previously worked for two magic circle law firms, represented herself. She accused cyclists of acting like “caped crusaders” enforcing a “police-controlled state.” She claimed that cyclists actively seek out law-breaking motorists and film them without consent.
However, the judge found her account to be unreliable and criticised her “lack of candour” in dealings with the ICO. He stated that she failed to disclose the ongoing legal proceedings when making complaints to the regulator. He further ruled that the footage contradicted her allegation that the cyclist had banged on her car roof.
The solicitor also claimed that she was not driving carelessly or dangerously when filmed by the cyclist. The judge dismissed this, saying that the footage “captured her in a criminal act” and that those who upload videos of such law-breaking help to deter future road crime.
Law professor Sally Kyd, the former head of Leicester University’s law school, said the judge had provided “clear support for the police use of third party reporting through uploading videos to online portals” and that the judge had shown the “deterrent effect on other drivers in seeing the potential to be caught.”
Furthermore, added Professor Kyd, it is “clear that the court takes the commission of the criminal offence of use of a mobile phone whilst driving seriously. This is pleasing to see, given that historically such offences have been framed by some as quasi-criminal.”
The cyclist, who also represented himself, told me: “The judge admitted that the case gave him lots to think about. Thankfully, the court sided with me.”
The solicitor told me by email: “Although [this] is one of the most important data protection rights cases to come before the courts this year, the hostility from the public bodies involved was deliberately used to undermine precious privacy rights. It should not have been left to me as a private citizen to expose the unlawful data protection behaviours of cyclists uploading digital material—obtained covertly from other private citizens—to portals for police prosecution purposes.”
Legal experts said the ruling sends a strong signal in support of public involvement in traffic enforcement. Martin Porter KC, joint head of chambers at 2 Temple Gardens, said that although the decision does not set a binding precedent, the judge considered the case with great care “perhaps with an eye to appeal.”
“The idea that data protection has any bearing on being filmed driving your car on a public road and committing traffic offences is ridiculous,” added Porter.
“The police will be interested in the outcome of this case,” said Professor Kyd, “as it makes clear that uploading videos is a legitimate means of helping to enforce motoring offences.”
This post was created with our nice and easy submission form. Create your post!
