From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to Ms
Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the Terrorism
Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in support of the proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in
support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide
being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with arrest
under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a judicial
review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response, the force has accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms Murton with arrest
and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest breached her rights
under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR and her common law
rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal data
in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act 2018
and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR
and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter Terrorism Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a Terrorism
Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful right
to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the proscription of Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a reminder to chief
constables across the country that there should be no unlawful
interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This is
the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages and
offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the proscription
of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonrCOs experience is not unique
and given the national failure of police forces to respect rights to
free speech in this context, her case is unlikely to be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the Chief Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards

S.P.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 13 Oct 2025 at 22:20:03 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to Ms
Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the Terrorism
Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in support of the proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in
support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide
being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a judicial review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response, the force has accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms Murton with arrest
and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest breached her rights
under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR and her common law rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal data
in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act 2018
and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR
and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter Terrorism Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a Terrorism
Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful right
to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the proscription of Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a reminder to chief
constables across the country that there should be no unlawful
interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This is
the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages and
offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the proscription
of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonrCOs experience is not unique
and given the national failure of police forces to respect rights to
free speech in this context, her case is unlikely to be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the Chief Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards

S.P.

It is strange that the police should believe that supporting Palestine was in itself a crime; fortunate they did not arrest our esteemed Prime Minister for recognising a Palestinian State. Though perhaps they recognised that he had
his fingers crossed behind his back.
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 13 Oct 2025 at 22:20:03 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to Ms
Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the Terrorism
Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in support of the
proscribed group "Palestine Action".

[rCa]

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the Chief
Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards

S.P.

It is strange that the police should believe that supporting Palestine was in itself a crime; fortunate they did not arrest our esteemed Prime Minister for
recognising a Palestinian State. Though perhaps they recognised that he had his fingers crossed behind his back.

This comes as no surprise. One gains the impression that over the summer,
the police variously have no ability to think, are unaware of the
background of the task-de-jour, or are merely following orders. This was
very apparent during the migrant-hotel protests, where bussing, escorting,
and generally mollycoddling the far-left counter-protesters was seen as
more important than the safety of women and girls on our streets.
--
Spike
Sign the rCYNo to IDrCY petition here:
<https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194?v=2>
BlackbeltBarrister opinion here:
<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0BvfT2ed7X0&pp=ygUSSWQgY2FyZHMgYmxhY2tiZWx0>

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 13/10/2025 22:47, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 13 Oct 2025 at 22:20:03 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to Ms
Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the Terrorism
Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in support of the
proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in
support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide
being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed
organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with arrest
under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a judicial
review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response, the force has
accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms Murton with arrest
and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest breached her rights
under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR and her common law
rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal data
in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act 2018
and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR
and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter Terrorism
Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a Terrorism
Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful right
to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the proscription of
Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a reminder to chief
constables across the country that there should be no unlawful
interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This is
the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages and
offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the proscription
of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonrCOs experience is not unique
and given the national failure of police forces to respect rights to
free speech in this context, her case is unlikely to be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the Chief
Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards

S.P.

It is strange that the police should believe that supporting Palestine was in itself a crime;

I don't find it strange, just ignorant overreaching.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 10/14/25 09:02, Norman Wells wrote:

It is strange that the police should believe that supporting Palestine
was in
itself a crime;

I don't find it strange, just ignorant overreaching.

We also don't know if this was an exceptional interpretation by a few
officers or common police procedure.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-10-13, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to Ms Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the Terrorism
Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in support of the proscribed group "Palestine Action".

Excellent news, thank you.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 22:20 13 Oct 2025, Simon Parker said:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to
Ms Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the
Terrorism Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in
support of the proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in
support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide
being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with
arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a
judicial review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response,
the force has accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms
Murton with arrest and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest
breached her rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the
ECHR and her common law rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal
data in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act
2018 and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of
the ECHR and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter Terrorism Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a
Terrorism Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful
right to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the
proscription of Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a
reminder to chief constables across the country that there should be
no unlawful interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This
is the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages
and offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the
proscription of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonAs
experience is not unique and given the national failure of police
forces to respect rights to free speech in this context, her case is unlikely to be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police- threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine- protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-
kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police- apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the
Chief Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of- Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards S.P.

I am interested to know what specific breach of data processing
occurred in her case. Is this to do with requiring access to an
unlocked phone? Has it been specified elsewhere?

The letter of apology from Kent Police says only:

"The Chief Constable further admits that the processing of your data
concerning the events of 14 July 2025 was unlawful in breach of
s.35(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 8 ECHR."

DPA 2018, s.35(1):

"The first data protection principle is that the processing of
personal data for any of the law enforcement purposes must be lawful
and fair."

HRA 1988, Article 8:

"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence."


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 13 Oct 2025 21:47:37 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 13 Oct 2025 at 22:20:03 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> >wrote:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to Ms
Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the Terrorism
Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in support of the
proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in
support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide
being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed
organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with arrest
under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a judicial
review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response, the force has
accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms Murton with arrest
and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest breached her rights
under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR and her common law
rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal data
in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act 2018
and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR
and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter Terrorism
Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a Terrorism
Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful right
to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the proscription of
Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a reminder to chief
constables across the country that there should be no unlawful
interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This is
the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages and
offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the proscription
of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonAs experience is not unique
and given the national failure of police forces to respect rights to
free speech in this context, her case is unlikely to be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the Chief
Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards

S.P.

It is strange that the police should believe that supporting Palestine was in >itself a crime; fortunate they did not arrest our esteemed Prime Minister for >recognising a Palestinian State. Though perhaps they recognised that he had >his fingers crossed behind his back.

May I admit a sneaking sympathy for the lot of the police constable on
duty? They are expected to be loyal, dependable, trustworthy and tough
but are they also expected to be the brightest and the best as well?

I would have hoped that before going out to manage a protest somewhere
they would have received a briefing - I'm thinking Sun Hill in the
eighties - with clarity about what latest intelligence has to say
about the situation ahead of them but when these, clearly improper,
uses of police powers occur I'm often left feeling that the beat
officer is left to try and work things out for themselves in real time
which is something some of them will inevitably get wrong.

I know the idea of a beat officer has pretty well been consigned to
history but do officers still receive daily personal briefings of some
sort? Doubtless there will be the station WhatsApp group but I hardly
see that as a substitute for clear, levelheaded in-person intelligence
sharing from experienced senior officers who will hopefully spot which
officers "get it" and which officers don't.

Nick

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14/10/2025 09:02, Norman Wells wrote:

On 13/10/2025 22:47, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 13 Oct 2025 at 22:20:03 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com>
wrote:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to Ms
Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the Terrorism
Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in support of the
proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in
support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide
being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed
organisation.-a Despite this, she was detained and threatened with arrest >>> under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a judicial
review letter of claim to Kent Police.-a In their response, the force has >>> accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms Murton with arrest
and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest breached her rights
under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR and her common law
rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal data >>> in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act 2018
and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR >>> and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter Terrorism
Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a Terrorism
Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful right
to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the proscription of
Palestine Action.-a I hope this case serves as a reminder to chief
constables across the country that there should be no unlawful
interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This is
the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages and
offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the proscription
of Palestine Action.-a Regrettably, Ms MurtonrCOs experience is not unique >>> and given the national failure of police forces to respect rights to
free speech in this context, her case is unlikely to be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-
threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-
protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-
apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the Chief
Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-
Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards

S.P.

It is strange that the police should believe that supporting Palestine
was in
itself a crime;

I don't find it strange, just ignorant overreaching.

You have evidence that it was ignorant overreaching rather than
deliberate overreaching?

And given that Ms Murton's success included a statement confirming "that
any materially similar protest in the future would not give rise to
reasonable grounds to suspect a Terrorism Act offence", I would suggest
that further overreaching of a similar nature, whether ignorant or
deliberate, ought to be curtailed at source in future, or at least ended
with suitable prompting and the mention of Ms Murton's name.

Regards

S.P.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14/10/2025 11:39, Pamela wrote:

On 22:20 13 Oct 2025, Simon Parker said:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to
Ms Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the
Terrorism Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in
support of the proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in
support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide
being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed
organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with
arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a
judicial review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response,
the force has accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms
Murton with arrest and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest
breached her rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the
ECHR and her common law rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal
data in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act
2018 and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of
the ECHR and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter
Terrorism Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine
Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a
Terrorism Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful
right to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the
proscription of Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a
reminder to chief constables across the country that there should be
no unlawful interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This
is the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages
and offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the
proscription of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonrCOs
experience is not unique and given the national failure of police
forces to respect rights to free speech in this context, her case is
unlikely to be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-
threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-
protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-
kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-
apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the
Chief Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-
Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards S.P.

I am interested to know what specific breach of data processing
occurred in her case. Is this to do with requiring access to an
unlocked phone? Has it been specified elsewhere?

The letter of apology from Kent Police says only:

"The Chief Constable further admits that the processing of your data
concerning the events of 14 July 2025 was unlawful in breach of
s.35(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 8 ECHR."

DPA 2018, s.35(1):

"The first data protection principle is that the processing of
personal data for any of the law enforcement purposes must be lawful
and fair."

HRA 1988, Article 8:

"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.

I believe it related to Ms Murton having being coerced under threat of
arrest into disclosing her name and address which was then processed so
as to place a 'marker' on the PNC.

As there was no lawful basis for demanding that Ms Murton provide her
name and address there can be lawful basis for processing it per your
quote from the relevant section of the DPA 2018 above.

Similarly, demanding her name and address without lawful excuse is a
breach of Article 8 HRA 1988.

A spectacular, and no doubt costly, mistake by Kent Police's 'finest'.
I'd be happier if the Chief Constable had been required personally to
foot the bill for this folly, but realise this isn't how things work.
However, a man can dream.

Regards

S.P.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14/10/2025 10:19, Pancho wrote:

On 10/14/25 09:02, Norman Wells wrote:

It is strange that the police should believe that supporting
Palestine was in
itself a crime;

I don't find it strange, just ignorant overreaching.

We also don't know if this was an exceptional interpretation by a few officers or common police procedure.

The Letter of Claim made reference to the Counter Terrorism
Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine Action.

It would be interesting to see what it says but, from what I can see,
any and all FOI requests are being met a Public Interest Test regarding disclosure per S24(1) National Security and S31(1) Law Enforcement
Public Interest invariably leading to a Refusal Notice under section
17(1) of the legislation.

Meaning we can but guess the answer to your question.

Regards

S.P.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14/10/2025 13:44, Simon Parker wrote:

On 14/10/2025 09:02, Norman Wells wrote:

On 13/10/2025 22:47, Roger Hayter wrote:

It is strange that the police should believe that supporting
Palestine was in itself a crime;

I don't find it strange, just ignorant overreaching.

You have evidence that it was ignorant overreaching rather than
deliberate overreaching?

One does not exclude the other.

And given that Ms Murton's success included a statement confirming "that
any materially similar protest in the future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a Terrorism Act offence", I would suggest
that further overreaching of a similar nature, whether ignorant or deliberate, ought to be curtailed at source in future, or at least ended with suitable prompting and the mention of Ms Murton's name.

'Ought', just as she 'ought' not to have been dealt with as she was in
the first place.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 22:20:03 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to Ms
Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the Terrorism
Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in support of the proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in
support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide
being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a judicial review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response, the force has accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms Murton with arrest
and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest breached her rights
under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR and her common law rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal data
in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act 2018
and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR
and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter Terrorism Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a Terrorism
Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful right
to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the proscription of Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a reminder to chief
constables across the country that there should be no unlawful
interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This is
the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages and
offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the proscription
of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonrCOs experience is not unique
and given the national failure of police forces to respect rights to
free speech in this context, her case is unlikely to be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-

to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-protester-

threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-apologise-

palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the Chief Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-Apology-

Redacted.pdf

I couldn't find the compensation paid to all the people who wanted to
engage in similar protests, but felt unable do do so because of the
police action(s).


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:46:39 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:

On 14/10/2025 11:39, Pamela wrote:

On 22:20 13 Oct 2025, Simon Parker said:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to
Ms Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the
Terrorism Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in
support of the proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in
support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide
being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed
organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with
arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a
judicial review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response,
the force has accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms
Murton with arrest and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest
breached her rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the
ECHR and her common law rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal
data in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act
2018 and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of
the ECHR and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter
Terrorism Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine
Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a
Terrorism Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful right
to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the proscription
of Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a reminder to chief
constables across the country that there should be no unlawful
interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This is
the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages and
offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the
proscription of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonrCOs experience >>> is not unique and given the national failure of police forces to
respect rights to free speech in this context, her case is unlikely to
be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-
threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-
protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-
kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-
apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the
Chief Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-
Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards S.P.

I am interested to know what specific breach of data processing
occurred in her case. Is this to do with requiring access to an
unlocked phone? Has it been specified elsewhere?

The letter of apology from Kent Police says only:

"The Chief Constable further admits that the processing of your
data concerning the events of 14 July 2025 was unlawful in breach
of s.35(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 8 ECHR."

DPA 2018, s.35(1):

"The first data protection principle is that the processing of
personal data for any of the law enforcement purposes must be
lawful and fair."

HRA 1988, Article 8:

"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life,
his home and his correspondence.

I believe it related to Ms Murton having being coerced under threat of
arrest into disclosing her name and address which was then processed so
as to place a 'marker' on the PNC.

As there was no lawful basis for demanding that Ms Murton provide her
name and address there can be lawful basis for processing it per your
quote from the relevant section of the DPA 2018 above.

Similarly, demanding her name and address without lawful excuse is a
breach of Article 8 HRA 1988.

A spectacular, and no doubt costly, mistake by Kent Police's 'finest'.
I'd be happier if the Chief Constable had been required personally to
foot the bill for this folly, but realise this isn't how things work. However, a man can dream.

But when have the police ever deleted illegally obtained data ? All they
need to do is claim "it's too difficult" and there is an end to it.

As I recall from the tens of thousands of people whose illegally obtained
DNA remains on the system ?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14/10/2025 17:44, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:46:39 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:

On 14/10/2025 11:39, Pamela wrote:

On 22:20 13 Oct 2025, Simon Parker said:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to
Ms Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the
Terrorism Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in
support of the proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in
support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide
being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed
organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with
arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a
judicial review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response,
the force has accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms
Murton with arrest and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest
breached her rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the
ECHR and her common law rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal
data in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act
2018 and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of
the ECHR and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter
Terrorism Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine
Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a
Terrorism Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful right >>>> to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the proscription
of Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a reminder to chief
constables across the country that there should be no unlawful
interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This is >>>> the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages and >>>> offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the
proscription of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonrCOs experience >>>> is not unique and given the national failure of police forces to
respect rights to free speech in this context, her case is unlikely to >>>> be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-
threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-
protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-
kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-
apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the
Chief Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-
Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards S.P.

I am interested to know what specific breach of data processing
occurred in her case. Is this to do with requiring access to an
unlocked phone? Has it been specified elsewhere?

The letter of apology from Kent Police says only:

"The Chief Constable further admits that the processing of your
data concerning the events of 14 July 2025 was unlawful in breach
of s.35(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 8 ECHR."

DPA 2018, s.35(1):

"The first data protection principle is that the processing of
personal data for any of the law enforcement purposes must be
lawful and fair."

HRA 1988, Article 8:

"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, >>> his home and his correspondence.

I believe it related to Ms Murton having being coerced under threat of
arrest into disclosing her name and address which was then processed so
as to place a 'marker' on the PNC.

As there was no lawful basis for demanding that Ms Murton provide her
name and address there can be lawful basis for processing it per your
quote from the relevant section of the DPA 2018 above.

Similarly, demanding her name and address without lawful excuse is a
breach of Article 8 HRA 1988.

A spectacular, and no doubt costly, mistake by Kent Police's 'finest'.
I'd be happier if the Chief Constable had been required personally to
foot the bill for this folly, but realise this isn't how things work.
However, a man can dream.

But when have the police ever deleted illegally obtained data ? All they
need to do is claim "it's too difficult" and there is an end to it.

As I recall from the tens of thousands of people whose illegally obtained
DNA remains on the system ?

I quote, verbatim, the relevant paragraph from the letter linked in my OP:

"The Chief Constable has directed that your data processed by Kent
Police as a result of the incident on 14 July 2025 must be deleted from
all its databases and will provide written confirmation once the process
of deletion has been completed. This data has not been shared with any
third parties outside Kent Police and will not be shared with any third parties."

What basis do you have for believing that Kent Police are not going to
delete the data as stated and then provide written confirmation once
this has been done? Bearing in mind that the claim for damages may well increase should this not happen?

Regards

S.P.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14/10/2025 15:25, Norman Wells wrote:

On 14/10/2025 13:44, Simon Parker wrote:

On 14/10/2025 09:02, Norman Wells wrote:

On 13/10/2025 22:47, Roger Hayter wrote:

It is strange that the police should believe that supporting
Palestine was in itself a crime;

I don't find it strange, just ignorant overreaching.

You have evidence that it was ignorant overreaching rather than
deliberate overreaching?

One does not exclude the other.

So which is it? Ignorant, deliberate, neither or both? And please
don't forget to provide whatever evidence you have to support your claim.

And given that Ms Murton's success included a statement confirming
"that any materially similar protest in the future would not give rise
to reasonable grounds to suspect a Terrorism Act offence", I would
suggest that further overreaching of a similar nature, whether
ignorant or deliberate, ought to be curtailed at source in future, or
at least ended with suitable prompting and the mention of Ms Murton's
name.

'Ought', just as she 'ought' not to have been dealt with as she was in
the first place.

It is now a matter of public record that three solicitors within a named
firm are willing to take on such cases. Either the police rein in their overreaching or they face lots of similar claims for damages. Which do
you believe to be the more likely option going forward?

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

I consider Ms Murton receiving:

(1) an apology;
(2) an undertaking that data relating to the incident will be destroyed
and confirmation sent once this has happened;
(3) confirmation that 'any materially similar protest in the future
would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a Terrorism Act
offence' and;
(4) not forgetting of course, the payment of damages

to be considerably more than a wish. YMMV (and invariably does).

Regards

S.P.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14/10/2025 16:28, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 22:20:03 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to Ms
Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the Terrorism
Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in support of the
proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in
support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide
being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed
organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with arrest
under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a judicial
review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response, the force has
accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms Murton with arrest
and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest breached her rights
under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the ECHR and her common law
rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal data
in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act 2018
and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR
and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter Terrorism
Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a Terrorism
Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful right
to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the proscription of
Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a reminder to chief
constables across the country that there should be no unlawful
interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This is
the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages and
offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the proscription
of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonrCOs experience is not unique
and given the national failure of police forces to respect rights to
free speech in this context, her case is unlikely to be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-

to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-protester-

threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-apologise-

palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the Chief
Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-Apology-

Redacted.pdf

I couldn't find the compensation paid to all the people who wanted to
engage in similar protests, but felt unable do do so because of the
police action(s).

I posted about the result of something that had happened in the real
world because I believe it might have been of interest to some people here.

I am not aware of any claims of the nature of which you speak, nor of
the legal basis for such claims.

Perhaps you could provide further and better particulars of the claim
you have in mind with reference to the relevant legislation and any
existing case law on the matter of which you are aware?

Regards

S.P.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-10-14, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 14/10/2025 17:44, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:46:39 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:

On 14/10/2025 11:39, Pamela wrote:

On 22:20 13 Oct 2025, Simon Parker said:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of >>>>> Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to >>>>> Ms Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the
Terrorism Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in
support of the proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in >>>>> support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide >>>>> being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed
organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with
arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a
judicial review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response,
the force has accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms
Murton with arrest and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest
breached her rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the
ECHR and her common law rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal
data in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act >>>>> 2018 and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of >>>>> the ECHR and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter >>>>> Terrorism Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine >>>>> Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a
Terrorism Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful right >>>>> to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the proscription >>>>> of Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a reminder to chief >>>>> constables across the country that there should be no unlawful
interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This is >>>>> the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages and >>>>> offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the
proscription of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonrCOs experience >>>>> is not unique and given the national failure of police forces to
respect rights to free speech in this context, her case is unlikely to >>>>> be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-
threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-
protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-
kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-
apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the
Chief Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-
Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards S.P.

I am interested to know what specific breach of data processing
occurred in her case. Is this to do with requiring access to an
unlocked phone? Has it been specified elsewhere?

The letter of apology from Kent Police says only:

"The Chief Constable further admits that the processing of your
data concerning the events of 14 July 2025 was unlawful in breach >>>> of s.35(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 8 ECHR."

DPA 2018, s.35(1):

"The first data protection principle is that the processing of
personal data for any of the law enforcement purposes must be
lawful and fair."

HRA 1988, Article 8:

"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, >>>> his home and his correspondence.

I believe it related to Ms Murton having being coerced under threat of
arrest into disclosing her name and address which was then processed so
as to place a 'marker' on the PNC.

As there was no lawful basis for demanding that Ms Murton provide her
name and address there can be lawful basis for processing it per your
quote from the relevant section of the DPA 2018 above.

Similarly, demanding her name and address without lawful excuse is a
breach of Article 8 HRA 1988.

A spectacular, and no doubt costly, mistake by Kent Police's 'finest'.
I'd be happier if the Chief Constable had been required personally to
foot the bill for this folly, but realise this isn't how things work.
However, a man can dream.

But when have the police ever deleted illegally obtained data ? All they
need to do is claim "it's too difficult" and there is an end to it.

As I recall from the tens of thousands of people whose illegally obtained
DNA remains on the system ?

I quote, verbatim, the relevant paragraph from the letter linked in my OP:

"The Chief Constable has directed that your data processed by Kent
Police as a result of the incident on 14 July 2025 must be deleted from
all its databases and will provide written confirmation once the process
of deletion has been completed. This data has not been shared with any
third parties outside Kent Police and will not be shared with any third parties."

What basis do you have for believing that Kent Police are not going to delete the data as stated and then provide written confirmation once
this has been done? Bearing in mind that the claim for damages may well increase should this not happen?

I imagine Jethro is recalling various situations in the past where
the police have collected, for example, DNA data on a wide scale and
promised that they will delete it and have not actually done so.

Jethro is right to be suspicious but I agree with you that in this
situation where the Chief Constable has given a specific assurance/
instruction with regard to a particular individual, that assurance
is likely to be carried out.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 14 Oct 2025 at 23:53:24 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-10-14, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 14/10/2025 17:44, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:46:39 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:

On 14/10/2025 11:39, Pamela wrote:

On 22:20 13 Oct 2025, Simon Parker said:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of >>>>>> Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to >>>>>> Ms Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the
Terrorism Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in
support of the proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in >>>>>> support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide >>>>>> being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding >>>>>> signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by >>>>>> police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed
organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with
arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a
judicial review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response, >>>>>> the force has accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms >>>>>> Murton with arrest and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest >>>>>> breached her rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the >>>>>> ECHR and her common law rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal >>>>>> data in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act >>>>>> 2018 and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of >>>>>> the ECHR and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter >>>>>> Terrorism Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine >>>>>> Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the >>>>>> future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a
Terrorism Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful right >>>>>> to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the proscription >>>>>> of Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a reminder to chief >>>>>> constables across the country that there should be no unlawful
interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This is >>>>>> the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages and >>>>>> offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the
proscription of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonrCOs experience >>>>>> is not unique and given the national failure of police forces to
respect rights to free speech in this context, her case is unlikely to >>>>>> be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here: >>>>>>
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-
threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-
protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-
kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-
apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the
Chief Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-
Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards S.P.

I am interested to know what specific breach of data processing
occurred in her case. Is this to do with requiring access to an
unlocked phone? Has it been specified elsewhere?

The letter of apology from Kent Police says only:

"The Chief Constable further admits that the processing of your >>>>> data concerning the events of 14 July 2025 was unlawful in breach >>>>> of s.35(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 8 ECHR." >>>>>
DPA 2018, s.35(1):

"The first data protection principle is that the processing of
personal data for any of the law enforcement purposes must be
lawful and fair."

HRA 1988, Article 8:

"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, >>>>> his home and his correspondence.

I believe it related to Ms Murton having being coerced under threat of >>>> arrest into disclosing her name and address which was then processed so >>>> as to place a 'marker' on the PNC.

As there was no lawful basis for demanding that Ms Murton provide her
name and address there can be lawful basis for processing it per your
quote from the relevant section of the DPA 2018 above.

Similarly, demanding her name and address without lawful excuse is a
breach of Article 8 HRA 1988.

A spectacular, and no doubt costly, mistake by Kent Police's 'finest'. >>>> I'd be happier if the Chief Constable had been required personally to
foot the bill for this folly, but realise this isn't how things work.
However, a man can dream.

But when have the police ever deleted illegally obtained data ? All they >>> need to do is claim "it's too difficult" and there is an end to it.

As I recall from the tens of thousands of people whose illegally obtained >>> DNA remains on the system ?

I quote, verbatim, the relevant paragraph from the letter linked in my OP: >>
"The Chief Constable has directed that your data processed by Kent
Police as a result of the incident on 14 July 2025 must be deleted from
all its databases and will provide written confirmation once the process
of deletion has been completed. This data has not been shared with any
third parties outside Kent Police and will not be shared with any third
parties."

What basis do you have for believing that Kent Police are not going to
delete the data as stated and then provide written confirmation once
this has been done? Bearing in mind that the claim for damages may well
increase should this not happen?

I imagine Jethro is recalling various situations in the past where
the police have collected, for example, DNA data on a wide scale and
promised that they will delete it and have not actually done so.

Jethro is right to be suspicious but I agree with you that in this
situation where the Chief Constable has given a specific assurance/ instruction with regard to a particular individual, that assurance
is likely to be carried out.

He would of course be unable to confirm that the lady in question has not been placed on a secret national security database (for suspicious persons); nor that this database might not be made available to the police under some circumstances. But what can you do?
--

Roger Hayter

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 10/14/25 23:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:

Jethro is right to be suspicious but I agree with you that in this
situation where the Chief Constable has given a specific assurance/ instruction with regard to a particular individual, that assurance
is likely to be carried out.

The police database may not be designed to allow deletes.

In financial databases, if a database might be required to provide an evidential audit trail, we never actually deleted anything. We just
marked records as deleted. So it appeared to be deleted to people using
the software accessing the database, but the data could be recovered by special commands. Quite a lot of software is like that.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 2025-10-15, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:

On 10/14/25 23:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:

Jethro is right to be suspicious but I agree with you that in this
situation where the Chief Constable has given a specific assurance/
instruction with regard to a particular individual, that assurance
is likely to be carried out.

The police database may not be designed to allow deletes.

In financial databases, if a database might be required to provide an evidential audit trail, we never actually deleted anything. We just
marked records as deleted. So it appeared to be deleted to people using
the software accessing the database, but the data could be recovered by special commands. Quite a lot of software is like that.

Again I take your point, and you may well be right, but for most intents
and purposes if no information comes up on the primary screen, whether
there is further information hidden behind a "view history" link or
somesuch is largely immaterial and doesn't seem to me to invalidate the promises made by the Chief Constable.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 21:12:40 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:

On 14/10/2025 16:28, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 22:20:03 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable of
Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages to
Ms Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the
Terrorism Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in
support of the proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in
support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide
being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed
organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with
arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a
judicial review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response,
the force has accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms
Murton with arrest and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest
breached her rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the
ECHR and her common law rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal
data in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection Act
2018 and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of
the ECHR and that its actions were inconsistent with national Counter
Terrorism Policing Guidance on policing the proscription of Palestine
Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a
Terrorism Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful right
to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the proscription
of Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a reminder to chief
constables across the country that there should be no unlawful
interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This is
the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay damages and
offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of the
proscription of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonrCOs experience >>> is not unique and given the national failure of police forces to
respect rights to free speech in this context, her case is unlikely to
be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-

to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-protester-

threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-apologise-

palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the
Chief Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-

Apology-

Redacted.pdf

I couldn't find the compensation paid to all the people who wanted to
engage in similar protests, but felt unable do do so because of the
police action(s).

I posted about the result of something that had happened in the real
world because I believe it might have been of interest to some people
here.

I am not aware of any claims of the nature of which you speak, nor of
the legal basis for such claims.

Perhaps you could provide further and better particulars of the claim
you have in mind with reference to the relevant legislation and any
existing case law on the matter of which you are aware?

But that is the genius of state behaviour like this. Despite the eventual outcome, it will have cowed enough people to have "done the job".

Pour encourage les autres and all that.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 21:12:17 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:

On 14/10/2025 17:44, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:46:39 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:

On 14/10/2025 11:39, Pamela wrote:

On 22:20 13 Oct 2025, Simon Parker said:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief Constable
of Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed to pay damages >>>>> to Ms Laura Murton after she was threatened with arrest under the
Terrorism Act and wrongly accused by the force of protesting in
support of the proscribed group "Palestine Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest in >>>>> support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the genocide >>>>> being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government by holding
signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned by
police, she made it clear that she did not support and proscribed
organisation. Despite this, she was detained and threatened with
arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a
judicial review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their response,
the force has accepted that the decision to detain and threaten Ms
Murton with arrest and to prohibit her from engaging in the protest
breached her rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the
ECHR and her common law rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's personal
data in connection with the incident breached the Data Protection
Act 2018 and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family
life) of the ECHR and that its actions were inconsistent with
national Counter Terrorism Policing Guidance on policing the
proscription of Palestine Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in the
future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a
Terrorism Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful
right to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the
proscription of Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a
reminder to chief constables across the country that there should be >>>>> no unlawful interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said "This
is the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to pay
damages and offer an apology arising from the unlawful policing of
the proscription of Palestine Action. Regrettably, Ms MurtonrCOs
experience is not unique and given the national failure of police
forces to respect rights to free speech in this context, her case is >>>>> unlikely to be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-
threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-
protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-
kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-
apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the
Chief Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-
Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards S.P.

I am interested to know what specific breach of data processing
occurred in her case. Is this to do with requiring access to an
unlocked phone? Has it been specified elsewhere?

The letter of apology from Kent Police says only:

"The Chief Constable further admits that the processing of your
data concerning the events of 14 July 2025 was unlawful in
breach of s.35(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 8
ECHR."

DPA 2018, s.35(1):

"The first data protection principle is that the processing of
personal data for any of the law enforcement purposes must be
lawful and fair."

HRA 1988, Article 8:

"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life,
his home and his correspondence.

I believe it related to Ms Murton having being coerced under threat of
arrest into disclosing her name and address which was then processed
so as to place a 'marker' on the PNC.

As there was no lawful basis for demanding that Ms Murton provide her
name and address there can be lawful basis for processing it per your
quote from the relevant section of the DPA 2018 above.

Similarly, demanding her name and address without lawful excuse is a
breach of Article 8 HRA 1988.

A spectacular, and no doubt costly, mistake by Kent Police's 'finest'.
I'd be happier if the Chief Constable had been required personally to
foot the bill for this folly, but realise this isn't how things work.
However, a man can dream.

But when have the police ever deleted illegally obtained data ? All
they need to do is claim "it's too difficult" and there is an end to
it.

As I recall from the tens of thousands of people whose illegally
obtained DNA remains on the system ?

I quote, verbatim, the relevant paragraph from the letter linked in my
OP:

"The Chief Constable has directed that your data processed by Kent
Police as a result of the incident on 14 July 2025 must be deleted from
all its databases and will provide written confirmation once the process
of deletion has been completed. This data has not been shared with any
third parties outside Kent Police and will not be shared with any third parties."

Fine words

What basis do you have for believing that Kent Police are not going to
delete the data as stated and then provide written confirmation once
this has been done? Bearing in mind that the claim for damages may well increase should this not happen?

https://www.theregister.com/2009/12/21/dna_pnc/

For a start.

That wouldn't be so bad, but English courts willingness to accept
unlawful if not illegal evidence (because the end always justifes the
means) makes an assurances worth less than the paper they aren't printed
on.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-10-14, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 14/10/2025 17:44, Jethro_uk wrote:

[rCa]

But when have the police ever deleted illegally obtained data ? All they >>> need to do is claim "it's too difficult" and there is an end to it.

As I recall from the tens of thousands of people whose illegally obtained >>> DNA remains on the system ?

I quote, verbatim, the relevant paragraph from the letter linked in my OP:

"The Chief Constable has directed that your data processed by Kent
Police as a result of the incident on 14 July 2025 must be deleted from
all its databases and will provide written confirmation once the process
of deletion has been completed. This data has not been shared with any
third parties outside Kent Police and will not be shared with any third
parties."

What basis do you have for believing that Kent Police are not going to
delete the data as stated and then provide written confirmation once
this has been done? Bearing in mind that the claim for damages may well
increase should this not happen?

I imagine Jethro is recalling various situations in the past where
the police have collected, for example, DNA data on a wide scale and
promised that they will delete it and have not actually done so.

Jethro is right to be suspicious but I agree with you that in this
situation where the Chief Constable has given a specific assurance/ instruction with regard to a particular individual, that assurance
is likely to be carried out.

I note that the statement by the Chief Constable of Kent could be regarded
as slightly ambiguous if not a little disingenuous.

His words rCLThis data has not been shared with any third parties outside
Kent Police and will not be shared with any third partiesrCY could be interpreted as not including the PNC, which might be regarded as falling
within Kent ConstabularyrCOs ambit. He refers to (quote) rCLrCaall its databasesrCarCY (unquote) but the PNC isnrCOt part of those.
--
Spike
Sign the rCYNo to IDrCY petition here:
<https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194?v=2>
BlackBeltBarrister opinion here:
<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0BvfT2ed7X0&pp=ygUSSWQgY2FyZHMgYmxhY2tiZWx0>

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.legal.moderated

On 21:12 14 Oct 2025, Simon Parker said:

On 14/10/2025 17:44, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 13:46:39 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:

On 14/10/2025 11:39, Pamela wrote:

On 22:20 13 Oct 2025, Simon Parker said:

Apropos the discussions on protests, proscribed organisations and
redress for those arrested without just cause, the Chief
Constable of Kent Police has issued a formal apology and agreed
to pay damages to Ms Laura Murton after she was threatened with
arrest under the Terrorism Act and wrongly accused by the force
of protesting in support of the proscribed group "Palestine
Action".

On 14th July 2025, Ms Murton took part in a single-person protest
in support of the people of Palestine and in opposition to the
genocide being perpetrated against them by the Israeli government
by holding signs which read "Free Gaza" and "Israel is committing
genocide."

Neither sign referred to "Palestine Action" and, when questioned
by police, she made it clear that she did not support and
proscribed organisation. Despite this, she was detained and
threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000.

on the 8th August 2025, solicitors acting for Ms Murton sent a
judicial review letter of claim to Kent Police. In their
response, the force has accepted that the decision to detain and
threaten Ms Murton with arrest and to prohibit her from engaging
in the protest breached her rights under Article 10 (freedom of
expression) of the ECHR and her common law rights to free speech.

Kent Police have also admitted that processing Ms Murton's
personal data in connection with the incident breached the Data
Protection Act 2018 and Article 8 (right to respect for private
and family life) of the ECHR and that its actions were
inconsistent with national Counter Terrorism Policing Guidance on
policing the proscription of Palestine Action.

The force also confirmed that any materially similar protest in
the future would not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect a
Terrorism Act offence.

Ms Murton said: "People should continue to exercise their lawful
right to protest in support of Palestinian people despite the
proscription of Palestine Action. I hope this case serves as a
reminder to chief constables across the country that there should
be no unlawful interference with those protest rights."

Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Ms Murton, said
"This is the first time a Chief Constable has been compelled to
pay damages and offer an apology arising from the unlawful
policing of the proscription of Palestine Action. Regrettably,
Ms MurtonrCOs experience is not unique and given the national
failure of police forces to respect rights to free speech in this
context, her case is unlikely to be the last."

The Guardian Newspaper reported the original threat of arrest
here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-
threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

The legal action here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/08/pro-palestine-
protester-threatened-with-arrest-takes-legal-action-against-
kent-police

And the apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/13/kent-police-
apologise-palestine-protester-laura-murton

A redacted facsimile of the full written apology on behalf of the
Chief Constable of Kent Police is here:

https://bhattmurphy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Letter-of-
Apology-Redacted.pdf

Regards S.P.

I am interested to know what specific breach of data processing
occurred in her case. Is this to do with requiring access to an
unlocked phone? Has it been specified elsewhere?

The letter of apology from Kent Police says only:

"The Chief Constable further admits that the processing of
your data concerning the events of 14 July 2025 was unlawful
in breach of s.35(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 and
Article 8 ECHR."

DPA 2018, s.35(1):

"The first data protection principle is that the processing
of personal data for any of the law enforcement purposes must
be lawful and fair."

HRA 1988, Article 8:

"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.

I believe it related to Ms Murton having being coerced under threat
of arrest into disclosing her name and address which was then
processed so as to place a 'marker' on the PNC.

As there was no lawful basis for demanding that Ms Murton provide
her name and address there can be lawful basis for processing it
per your quote from the relevant section of the DPA 2018 above.

Similarly, demanding her name and address without lawful excuse is
a breach of Article 8 HRA 1988.

A spectacular, and no doubt costly, mistake by Kent Police's
'finest'. I'd be happier if the Chief Constable had been required
personally to foot the bill for this folly, but realise this isn't
how things work. However, a man can dream.

But when have the police ever deleted illegally obtained data ? All
they need to do is claim "it's too difficult" and there is an end to
it.

As I recall from the tens of thousands of people whose illegally
obtained DNA remains on the system ?

I quote, verbatim, the relevant paragraph from the letter linked in
my OP:

"The Chief Constable has directed that your data processed by Kent
Police as a result of the incident on 14 July 2025 must be deleted
from all its databases and will provide written confirmation once the
process of deletion has been completed. This data has not been shared
with any third parties outside Kent Police and will not be shared
with any third parties."

What basis do you have for believing that Kent Police are not going
to delete the data as stated and then provide written confirmation
once this has been done? Bearing in mind that the claim for damages
may well increase should this not happen?

Regards

S.P.

I wonder why the police are making a big fuss about deleting her data.

The context suggests this is about more than deleting someone's name,
address, charges, etc.

Are the police permitted to copy the entire contents of her smartphone
and now want to assure her they're not keeping it?


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2