Skip to main content

Privacy International files complaints and calls for inquiry into Home Office’s electronic monitoring of migrants

Summary

Privacy rights charity says GPS tagging breaches Data Protection Act and GDPR and violates migrants' Article 8 rights

By EIN
Date of Publication:

Privacy International (PI) announced last week that it had filed complaints with the Information Commissioner (ICO) and the Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) over the Home Office's use of global positioning system (GPS) ankle tags to monitor migrants released on immigration bail.

Home Office buildingImage credit: UK GovernmentThe GPS tags are used to monitor precise location 24 hours a day, with the resultant data processed and stored for years by the Electronic Monitoring Services (EMS) run by Capita. PI has a useful explainer about the tags here.

In its complaint to the ICO last week, PI argues that the GPS tagging scheme breaches the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and violates migrants' Article 8 right to privacy. It says the constant monitoring is excessive and there is no transparency as to the nature and extent of data collection and processing.

"This form of monitoring is a seismic change in the surveillance and data-intensive systems used against those subject to immigration control in the UK, causing tagged individuals feelings of anxiety, social exclusion, and sometimes causing re-traumatisation," PI stated.

The privacy rights charity also warned that the data collected could damage a person's immigration application.

PI said: "Despite the indiscriminate mass nature of this surveillance, there is no provision for judicial or independent oversight at the point where an electronic monitoring condition is imposed by the Home Office. The Home Office also plans on using individuals' GPS location data for a variety of purposes - of particular concern, to inform decisions on individuals' asylum and immigration applications, stating that this will negate the need to request substantiating evidence from third parties."

In its complaint to the Forensic Science Regulator, PI called for an investigation to be carried out into Home Office practices in the context of immigration. PI highlighted concerns over numerous reports of tags failing to charge properly, which can be interpreted as a breach of immigration bail conditions and result in civil and criminal penalties.

Lucie Audibert, Legal Officer at PI, added: "[The Home Office's] disregard for data protection and human rights laws is shocking. It's time for regulators to use their investigatory and enforcement powers to put an end to this harmful policy, sadly just one of the myriad callous facets of the UK Hostile Environment."

A Home Office spokesperson told the Evening Standard that the GPS tagging "puts a hard stop to foreign criminals who callously seek to abuse the system, breach bail conditions, and commit further crimes, putting the lives and safety of the public at risk".

Earlier this month, the Guardian reported that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are also planning to use smartwatches installed with facial recognition technology to monitor migrants who have been convicted of a criminal offence.

The Guardian article was based on data obtained by PI through a freedom of information (FOI) request.

The Guardian reported: "Those obliged to wear the devices will need to complete periodic monitoring checks throughout the day by taking a photograph of themselves on a smartwatch, with information including their names, date of birth, nationality and photographs stored for up to six years. Locations will be tracked '24/7, allowing trail monitoring data to be recorded'."

PI's Lucie Audibert commented to the Guardian: "No other country in Europe has deployed this dehumanising and invasive technology against migrants."

Janet Farrell of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors told the Guardian in June: "The way the Home Office is using GPS as a condition of immigration bail means our clients are subject to 24/7 surveillance and data collection on all their movements, on an indefinite basis. There are serious concerns about the legality of this intrusive policy that need to be tested in the courts."