'Extensive' Home Security Ruled As Breach Of Neighbour's Data Protection Rights

• Published date: 22 November 2021
• Subject Matter: Government, Public Sector, Privacy, Data Protection, Terrorism, Homeland Security & Defence
• Law Firm: BLM
• Author: Mr Tim Smith

In Fairhurst v Woodard (12 October 2021) a County Court judge has ruled that surveillance equipment installed at a private residence breached a neighbour's data protection rights.

Background

The defendant had installed a Ring Video doorbell, a Ring Spotlight Camera on his garden shed, a second Ring Spotlight camera pointing down a shared driveway towards a shared car park (but with a line of vision into the claimant's side gate and garden) and a final camera inside his front windowsill. The witness evidence suggested that the Ring Spotlight Camera could reliably record speech from about 53 feet away and that the Ring Video Doorbell could record speech from about 68 feet away.

The claimant was a neighbour of the defendant. The claimant felt that the cameras were intrusive but the defendant responded in a relatively hostile manner towards the claimant's attempts to discuss them with him. Ultimately, the claimant moved out of her home stating that she did not feel safe there any more. Following this, she then brought proceedings against the defendant for breach of her rights under the Data Protection Act 2018 ("DPA") and the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"), for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ("PHA") and for nuisance.

Findings and judgment

The judge upheld the claims for breaches of the DPA and harassment but rejected the claim for nuisance. In this article we focus on the data protection issues and also found.

The judge found that some of the defendant's equipment would record movement on the claimant's property including her driveway, some of her garden and her parking spaces and that conversations at the claimant's front door, on the pavement in front of her house and on her driveway were susceptible to being heard and recorded.

The judge concluded that the images and audio recordings were personal data and that the defendant was a data controller for the purpose of the GDPR. As a result the defendant was required to comply with the data protection principles, including the requirements to process personal data fairly, lawfully and transparently.

The defendant argued that his collection and processing of the claimant's personal data was necessary for the purposes of crime prevention.

The judge concluded that the defendant had not been transparent about his processing and that the balance between the defendant's legitimate interests and those of the claimant weighed in favour of the defendant in relation to the video...