G4S has partially backed down in a row about filming asylum seekers in their own homes without their consent after campaigners threatened to sue the security firm for alleged privacy breaches.

Last month, more than 60 G4S housing and welfare officers working on a government contract to house 30,000 asylum seekers were issued with body-worn cameras in a measure designed to tackle violence and threats against staff.

The cameras were operated in “constant recording mode”, including when officers were dealing with asylum seekers and their children in their own homes. G4S says the initiative had the support of the Home Office, but it alarmed both the information and surveillance commissioners. The Information Commissioner’s Office ( ICO) raised concerns with G4S after being alerted by the Guardian to the way the cameras were being used.

As a result, G4S has promised to scrap the contentious use of constant recording by instructing staff to use cameras only when they felt threatened.

A spokesman said: “G4S has been in contact with the Information Commissioner’s Office following their concerns raised and that, pending further dialogue about the firm’s policy, staff will only switch on the cameras when they feel intimidated or threatened.”

The change came after Asirt, a Birmingham-based advocacy group for asylum seekers, said it was considering legal action against G4S on the grounds that use of the cameras flouts the right to private life in the home under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.

Dave Stamp, the group’s project manager and an immigration lawyer, said: “While it may be lawful to film or record people in public without their consent, these people are not in a public place: they are in their own homes, where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

In a letter to G4S, written on behalf of West Midlands Strategic Migration Partnership, Stamp said: “If statutory guidance suggests that it is not appropriate for parking enforcement officers to be recording members of the public for the entirety of their working day, why is it appropriate for G4S staff perpetually to record interactions with people going about their business in their own homes, potentially wishing to protect their privacy around, for example, sensitive personal relationships?”

Stamp welcomed G4S’s promise to scrap constant recording, but pointed out that the company only changed the approach after questions from the Guardian. At a meeting this month G4s said it had done enough to satisfy concerns of campaigners.

Now Stamp wants it go further by spelling out how asylum seekers can review the footage.



He said it was in G4S’s interests to be more transparent about its use of surveillance cameras. In November 2013 three G4S guards were acquitted of manslaughter over the unlawful killing of Jimmy Mubenga, who died on a deportation flight to Angola. Stamp argued that if guards had worn body-worn cameras the incident may not have happened.



Stamp said: “It is conceivable that Mr Mubenga would still be alive today had body-worn cameras been in use during the removal process – but only if there was reason to believe that any subsequent footage of the restraint techniques employed would be subject to scrutiny.”

He added: “While we fully support the idea that G4S officers should be able to go about their business without fear or intimidation, it is equally important that the people G4S is contracted to support have the same rights.

“This can only happen if G4S complies with the ICO’s guidance on data retention and access, allowing G4S’s service users, as well as its officers, the right of access to view any recorded footage.”

Asirt claims G4S has failed to consider the impact of the move on the privacy of asylum seekers and the discomfort it would cause. It said in one instance, a Muslim woman being housed in Stoke felt compelled to put on a headscarf in her own home. She was being filmed by a female G4S officer, but was concerned that a man would view the footage.

G4S insisted that a privacy impact assessment was conducted before the cameras were issued, but it has refused to make it public.



Under a code of practice produced by the information commissioner, individuals have a right to review footage within 40 days of requesting it. G4S says asylum seekers will be able to review footage if requested, but it has given contradictory statements about how long the footage will be retained.

In a letter sent last month to asylum seekers [pdf] it said: “Footage will be deleted each day, unless there has been an incident.” But in an accompanying Q&A [pdf] it said: “All footage will be stored for no more than six months before being deleted.”

A G4S spokesman said each camera had a 30-hour memory before it began to overwrite. As a result, footage would be available to review for up to 10 days.

The company said it felt it was necessary to issue the cameras after recording 73 incidents of assault or threatening behaviour against its officers in 2016.

In a statement issued before the climbdown over constant recording, John Whitwam, the head of G4S immigration and borders, said: “Our considered view after looking at the evidence is that these devices will help to reduce the incidents of intimidation and violence experienced by our staff who typically work alone, as well as afford protection to service users by providing an impartial source of evidence when we investigate complaints against our team.

“Body-worn cameras have been shown by numerous agencies to afford protection and accountability, which is of importance not only to our staff but also to those vulnerable people to whom we provide a critical service.”