Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner tenders resignation

Sampson was appointed to cover the “combined, but discrete” roles of Commissioner for the Retention and Use of Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner for a period of two years while Government decided how to proceed with the respective functions currently set out under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Of course, the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill – currently at the report stage before its third reading in the House of Commons – makes provision for the functions of the Biometrics Commissioner to be subsumed by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.

Further, it removes the need for the Government to publish a Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, effectively rendering the functions of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner otiose.

In his communication with Braverman (which has been published on the Office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s website), Professor Sampson notes: “I had been clear in discussion with officials that, for personal reasons, I would be out of the country for a substantial period towards the end of 2023. As the end of my term approached, I agreed to consider a short reappointment tied to the intended date on which the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill would receive Royal Assent, which was envisaged at that time to fall within the same session of Parliament. Changes to the timetable in the House have resulted in the Bill not being expected to attain Royal Assent until the Spring of 2024 at the earliest.”

The Commissioner continues: “Having explored a number of alternatives with officials, I’m unable to find a practical way in which I can continue to discharge the functions of these two roles beyond 1 November and I must therefore give notice of my intention to resign on 31 October. I shall, of course, continue to carry out the duties of the position in accordance with the terms of my reappointment for the notice period and wish my successor(s) well.”

Criminal justice sector

Sampson began working in the criminal justice sector over 40 years ago, having joined West Yorkshire Police on leaving school and later serving with the British Transport Police before becoming a solicitor specialising in policing law, conduct and governance.

As national chair of the Association of Police and Crime Chief Executives, Sampson proposed – and subsequently drafted – the statutory ‘Oath of Office’ for Police and Crime Commissioners and was appointed CEO and solicitor to the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire in 2012.

Sampson is an Honorary Professor and member of the Advisory Board at the Centre for Excellence in Terrorism, Resilience, Intelligence and Organised Crime Research at Sheffield Hallam University, an institution at which he studied for and gained a PhD in digital accountability in law enforcement.

Tremendous support

On taking up his role at the Home Office, Professor Sampson stated his intention to “keep the momentum going” in terms of the National Surveillance Camera Strategy. He also announced his intention to continue the third party certification scheme, which was – and, many would affirm, still is – Best Practice and the ‘Gold Standard’ in terms of the operation of surveillance camera systems.

Indeed, that certification enables organisations to demonstrate to their communities that they use their surveillance camera systems in a transparent, effective and proportionate manner.

Published back in 2013, the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice (itself  withdrawn on 17 February last year) was designed to be a robust regulatory framework enabling the proportionate and accountable use of overt surveillance cameras by relevant authorities.

In late 2021, Professor Sampson delivered what was described at the time as “a forensic dissection” of the Government’s plan to absorb oversight of key policing powers within the Information Commissioner’s Office. The clear majority of practising security professionals agreed with his strong views on this matter.

Having subsequently praised the Government on its “sensible decision” in June last year not to hand oversight of the police service’s use of DNA and fingerprints to the ICO, three months later the Commissioner penned an exclusive article for Security Matters to consider the proposed legislation designed to reform public space surveillance by the police service.

Sampson wrote: “Policy is for others and legislation is for Parliament, but practically speaking I believe we need a set of clear and indefeasible principles by which the police service can be held to account for its use of surveillance technology, both transparently and auditably. There are many different models by which to achieve this end goal, but the acid test for all of them will be whether they ensure that the technology (ie what is possible) is only being used for legitimate and authorised purposes (ie what is permissible) and also in a way that the citizen is prepared to support (ie what is acceptable).”

Expressing concern

In the first quarter of 2023, the Commissioner issued a statement – on the back of a survey commissioned by the Office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner – suggesting that police forces in the UK are “shot through” with Chinese camera technology.

Sampson explained: “There has been much in the news in recent times about how concerned we should be about Chinese spy balloons 60,000 feet up in the sky. I don’t understand why we are not at least as concerned about the Chinese cameras six feet above our heads in the street and elsewhere.”

He went on to comment: “Parliament has already acted to curtail the use of equipment made by several Chinese manufacturers from some areas of public life where security is key. In tandem with others, I have been saying for some time that we should, both for security and ethical reasons, really be asking ourselves whether it’s ever appropriate for public bodies to use equipment made by companies with such serious questions hanging over them.”

Last month, Sampson once again aired his concerns on this matter during an interview that formed part of BBC One’s Panorama ‘special’ entitled: ‘Is China Watching You?’

In what has turned into one of his final acts as Commissioner, Sampson contacted accreditation bodies the Security Systems and Alarms Inspection Board, IQ Verify Ltd and the National Security Inspectorate regarding the future of the third party certification scheme for surveillance systems, which was put forward for closure.

The Government’s decisions to make provision for the functions of the Biometrics Commissioner to be subsumed by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and also remove the need to publish a Surveillance Camera Code of Practice – thereby rendering the functions of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner effectively redundant – are viewed by many security sector commentators and practitioners as being, at best, extremely short-sighted.