UK Citizens’ Right to Audit the Police: A Comprehensive Legal Framework at Risk of Misuse

Human rights may be at risk of police overreach after UK officers’ habit of unlawfully punishing auditors, journalists, and photographers in public.

In recent years, a growing number of citizens across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have taken to auditing police activity — filming officers on duty, publicly recording police-station entrances, or documenting conduct in public places — as a means of holding law enforcement accountable. While these actions are often entirely lawful, many auditors report being detained, searched, or arrested without clear legal basis. Legal experts suggest that the root of the problem lies in a complex overlay of historic charters, statutory law, human rights treaties, and administrative guidance that officers may not fully understand.

The right of citizens to hold the state accountable traces back centuries. The Magna Carta 1297 enshrined the principle that “No free man shall be… imprisoned… except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” Clauses 39 and 40 guarantee due process and access to justice. The Charter of Liberties 1100 further constrained arbitrary government power, while the Petition of Right 1628 affirmed that the Crown must respect subjects’ rights, including the right to petition without fear of reprisal. The Bill of Rights 1689 explicitly recognised: “It is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.”

These historic instruments form the constitutional backdrop for modern auditing of police conduct.

Modern UK law reinforces these rights through statutes such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE 1984”), which regulates stop, search, and arrest powers; the Criminal Justice Act 1972; and the Act of Settlement 1701, which ensures judicial independence.

Common-law protections — such as the writ of habeas corpus — also underpin the right not to be unlawfully deprived of liberty. Under common law, the doctrines of legality and proportionality demand that police powers be clearly defined and exercised only when necessary.

In Mengesha v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2013] EWHC 1695 (Admin), the High Court held that police had no lawful authority to require individuals to submit to filming or identification as a condition of release from containment [see CaseMine, 2013].

At the heart of modern accountability lies the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. Key rights include:

• Article 5: Right to liberty and security

• Article 6: Right to a fair trial

• Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life

• Article 10: Freedom of expression — covering filming and audiovisual recording in public

• Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association

The UK is also bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), both of which safeguard freedom of expression and due process.

In the policing context, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has repeatedly held that covert filming and the retention of images without adequate safeguards may breach Article 8. In Peck v United Kingdom [2003] EHRR 287, the Court found that the disclosure of CCTV footage violated Article 8. Similarly, in Perry v United Kingdom [2003] 63737/00 (ECHR), covert filming at a police station was deemed an unlawful interference with private life [see LawTeacher.net, 2003; Lexploria, 2003].

Although the UK has left the European Union, the legacy of EU law remains significant. Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, a substantial body of EU-derived law was retained, including data-protection principles stemming from the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018).

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on 4 May 2023 that Article 82 GDPR does not permit compensation for mere infringement of data-protection rights unless actual damage is proven [see Farrer & Co., 2023]. Earlier decisions had found the UK’s Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) unlawful for permitting indiscriminate retention of personal data [see Hogan Lovells, 2016].

The European Commission has since confirmed that the UK continues to adhere to key safeguards under the DPA 2018 regime, though the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights no longer applies directly [see European Commission, 2021].

In Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, devolved legal frameworks broadly mirror core constitutional and human-rights protections, albeit with jurisdictional nuances.

For example, policing and public-order powers in Scotland fall under the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, overseen by the Scottish Police Authority. Northern Ireland likewise maintains its own oversight bodies. Across all jurisdictions, the rights to freedom of expression and due process remain guaranteed under the ECHR and HRA 1998 and both local and UK-wide constitutional statutes/charters.

Local authorities — including city and county councils — enact by-laws, surveillance codes, and public-space filming policies that must align with national statutes, human-rights obligations, and common law. Police guidance documents frequently reference these local policies when interacting with auditors or citizen journalists.

National policing guidance explicitly affirms the public’s right to film in public:

The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) Guidance for Photographers states: “There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film, or digital images in a public place. Therefore, members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.” [see NPCC, 2017]. The College of Policing (CoP) Media Relations Authorised Professional Practice (APP) similarly asserts: “Police have no power or moral responsibility to stop the filming or photographing of incidents or police personnel.". The CoP, APP Media Relations, and

local force guidance — such as that issued by West Midlands Police — reiterates that, if a person is filming from a public place and not obstructing officers, they should be informed that they are not detained, are free to leave, and may continue filming. The guidance emphasizes: “There are no powers prohibiting people taking photographs or filming outside our buildings or in any other public place, and they should not be prevented from doing so.” [see West Midlands Police FOI, 2022].

Despite a clear legal and policy framework, auditors frequently report obstruction, detention, or searches by police. Typical incidents include:

• Being asked to delete or surrender recorded footage without lawful authority.

• Being detained or arrested for filming police-station entrances or officers in public spaces.

• Being searched under broad powers — for instance, under Terrorism Act 2000 sections 43 and 44 — where “reasonable suspicion” may not, in fact, be met.

Such actions may give rise to claims for false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office, unlawful arrest or detention, and breaches of Articles 5 (liberty) and 10 (expression) of the ECHR via the HRA.

Auditors who believe they have been unlawfully detained or searched may pursue several remedies:

• A civil claim in the High Court or County Court against the Chief Constable (or equivalent) for false imprisonment, assault or battery, or misfeasance in public office.

• A claim under the HRA for breach of Articles 5, 8, or 10.

• A complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) or equivalent professional-standards body.

• A data-protection claim under the DPA 2018/UK GDPR framework if footage or personal images were retained or processed unlawfully.

Equivalent oversight and redress mechanisms exist in Scotland and Northern Ireland, though the procedures differ.

Several factors contribute to the ongoing disconnect between law and practice:

• Many frontline officers lack full familiarity with the legal limits of their powers, particularly regarding public filming.

• Institutional culture may sometimes perceive auditors as antagonists rather than as citizens exercising lawful rights.

• Broad powers of stop, search, or detention (under PACE, the Terrorism Act, or the Public Order Act 1986) may be applied too broadly or without sufficient justification.

• Local or station-level policies may lag behind national guidance or current human-rights jurisprudence.

  
  

The UK’s legal architecture — from the Petition of Right 1628 and Magna Cartas 1215-1297 to the HRA 1998, ECHR, and modern police-policy frameworks — clearly affirms the public’s right to film police officers in public without fear of reprisal. Yet, the experience of many auditors reveals a troubling gap between principle and practice.

As policing institutions continue to champion transparency and accountability, it is imperative for both officers and public auditors to understand their respective rights and obligations. Without such mutual understanding, citizens who seek to lawfully observe state power may continue to face coercive or unlawful responses — a contradiction of the very rule-of-law principle that underpins policing in the United Kingdom.

For further reference, see NPCC Guidance for Photographers, College of Policing Media Relations APP, Peck v UK, Perry v UK, and Mengesha v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.