Spies in the sky that led police to murder gang

Using automatic number plate recognition cameras, police were also able to create a detailed model of the killers’ vehicles heading in convoy from Leeds to Bradford in the run-up to the robbery at a travel agents where the police woman was shot.

Ultimately it helped trap her killers and led to brothers Mustaf and Yusuf Jama and their friend Muzzaker Shah, the gunman, being jailed for life for her killing.

It is examples like this which supporters of CCTV cite as evidence of why the crime-solving abilities of the technology outweigh concerns over surveillance.

“I do understand the concern people have but I think it’s having a balance,” said assistant chief constable Jawaid Akhtar of West Yorkshire Police. “But actually look at the number of cases which without CCTV either would have been not resolved or would have taken a lot more resources and time, and in that time these people may have been able to commit other offences.

“There’s nothing that comes without a cost – whether that’s in civil liberties or financial – but I would say overall it’s a force for good. I can’t imagine our society without CCTV.”

An investigation by the Yorkshire Post today reveals that councils and police alone are now monitoring at least 2,240 CCTV cameras in public spaces across the region – at a cost of more than £6m a year.

That does not include thousands more cameras installed on and inside council buildings – for example Rotherham Council alone says it has another 866 cameras on its property, while Kirklees Council has 264 cameras on four housing estates on top of its 157 “Streetscene” CCTV cameras.

Elsewhere in Yorkshire schools and health trusts have hundreds more cameras on their buildings, while thousands more are thought to be operated by private firms and even individual householders, although police admit no one has any idea exactly how many there are in operation because there is no requirement to register them.

Evidence of the effectiveness of the cameras is mixed. Several authorities – Barnsley, Calderdale, Doncaster, North Lincolnshire, Selby, Sheffield, Wakefield and York – did not provide any evidence of crimes they had helped crack.

Leeds City Council – the biggest spender on cameras, splashing out £1.2m a year – said it was aware of 7,052 arrests as a result of CCTV between 2008 and January of this year, while Hull City Council said evidence had been provided for 3,357 crimes, with 6,022 arrests made “with partners” over the past three years.

Kirklees Council said 989 arrests were made over 3,572 incidents spotted on CCTV in 2010, Hambleton Council said 518 arrests had been made over three years and Ryedale Council said 124 arrests were made between 2008 and 2010 as a result of “direct real-time involvement of CCTV camera operation”.

Coun Peter Gruen, chairman of the Safer Leeds Partnership, said the costs were “worth it”.

“There’s a tangible record of success in terms of leading to arrests and leading to a reduction in crime,” he said. “I also know from what the public tells us they are reassured by CCTV cameras – they’re a real deterrent and therefore they feel safer going about their business.”

Wakefield Council also insists the cameras are effective and save police time. Glynn Humphries, the council’s Services Director for Cleaner and Greener, said: “Whilst CCTV may not be the answer to all anti social behaviour and crime issues the system has, over the years, produced footage that has been used in the courts to secure convictions. CCTV monitoring systems are there to protect people’s lives and property.”

Daniel Hamilton, Director of Big Brother Watch, said CCTV had a “valuable role” at places like airports or controlling access to schools, but said councils across the country had spent £32m on CCTV over three years and said it was “wrong” that people are “constantly surveyed”.

“CCTV is part of a law enforcement mix but arrests are often made after a crime is committed rather than preventing crime taking place,” he said.

Isabella Sankey, director of policy at Liberty, said: “We are concerned that public expectations about the role that CCTV can play in keeping them safe are somewhat out of step with the reality.”

Amid concerns on the way some councils abused surveillance powers to spy on residents for relatively minor offences such as leaving bins out for too long or dropping litter, Ministers are now introducing a Code of Practise which local authorities and police – and possibly private firms at a later date – will have to abide by. It forms part of the Government’s Protection of Freedoms Bill currently going through Parliament.

A Home Office spokesman said there is “no intention to limit the numbers of CCTV in use” and stressed provision is a local decision.

But Shipley MP Philip Davies rejected civil liberties concerns over the technology. “I don’t understand these freedom arguments because it doesn’t impact on our freedoms at all.

“If people talk about having cameras in people’s bedrooms and bathrooms, fair enough, but we’re talking about people walking down the street. Anyone can see what they’re doing, what does it matter whether there’s cameras there or not?

“It makes a massive difference to the police in being able to tackle crime, it prevents witnesses from having to give evidence in court, it presents an unbiased account of what happened in court, there’s people whose convictions have been quashed because of the fact CCTV shows it wasn’t them who committed the crime.”