Spy laws should be used to prevent dog-fouling, says ex-judge

The Chief Surveillance Commissioner has defended the use of covert surveillance against dog-fouling.

Sir Christopher Rose, a former senior Court of Appeal judge, made his comments in a robust speech explaining his powers this morning. His job is to oversee the way in which all public authorities apart from the security services carry out all forms of covert surveillance except intercepts.

This covers “property interference” and “intrusive surveillance”, both of which can be carried out only by law enforcement agencies. He also oversees “directed surveillance” — covert but not intrusive — and the use of informants. These powers can be used by some 500 local authorities for preventing or detecting crime.

Sir Christopher referred to press reports last year that some councils were using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to crack down on dog fouling. Others were using the powers to monitor people who left litter or who abused the blue badge scheme for disabled drivers.

“The headline ‘Anti-terror laws used against dog fouling’ encapsulates in a few words all that is worst in popular journalism,” said Sir Christopher.

“It is inaccurate, emotive and grossly misleading. The legislation is, expressly, for many purposes other than fighting terrorism.”

The chief commissioner said he understood that dog excrement carried a parasite which could cause blindness in children.

“On this basis I suspect that a reasonable, well-informed, member of the public would approve of covert surveillance necessary to reduce dog-fouling in children’s playgrounds.”

Sir Christopher also said, without further explanation, that “media criticism of Poole Borough Council was misplaced”. This appears to be a reference to a decision by the council, reported last April, to conduct surveillance of a couple who were wrongly suspected of not living in their children’s school catchment area.

In his speech, which will be available on his website, Sir Christopher said it was no part of his responsibility to encourage or discourage the use of covert surveillance.

“How much or how little takes place is not my concern. My job is to seek to ensure, so far as the resources at my disposal permit, that when covert surveillance is carried out it is necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the legislation and relevant codes of practice.”

Posted at February 10, 2009 11:00 AM