An 87-year-old political campaigner from Brighton has lost a legal action to have details about his attendance at various protests removed from a police "extremism" database.

John Catt, who is of good character, argued that as he has not engaged in any criminality, the retention of data about him on the National Domestic Extremism Database was unlawful.

Mr Catt, who said that his human rights were being violated, had urged two judges at the High Court in London to order the removal of details about his activities from the database, which is operated by police chiefs.

But today Lord Justice Gross and Mr Justice Irwin dismissed his judicial review claim - ruling that his right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not infringed.

Lord Justice Gross said the data in issue "is essentially comprised of records, or reports, made by police officers overtly policing demonstrations" of a group known as Smash EDO.

Smash ED0 "is a protest group which has carried on a long-running campaign, calling for the closure of EDO, a US owned arms company carrying on a lawful business and with a factory in Brighton".

The judge added: "Smash EDO stages regular protests. Although many people at Smash EDO protests do not commit criminal offences, disorder and criminality has been a feature of a number of the protests: over 136 offences have been recorded.

"On one occasion more than GBP300,000 damage was caused. Harassment of staff has been a feature of this campaign. As a result EDO has spent in excess of GBP1 million in security measures."

Lord Justice Gross said demonstrations of the nature and persistence of Smash ED0 required an appropriate police response "balancing the facilitation of the right to lawful and peaceful protest with the need to maintain order, minimise the risks of criminal behaviour and safeguard the rights of others".

It was argued on Mr Catt's behalf that he had a "reasonable expectation that his privacy would not be invaded by the creation and retention of written information about him by the police".

Rejecting Mr Catt's case, Lord Justice Gross said: "The compilation and retention of the reports were predictable consequences of Mr Catt's very public activities; they neither engaged nor infringed his right to privacy."

Mr Justice Irwin said that a reasonable expectation of privacy did not arise in respect of any of the information in the case.

"The very essence of public demonstration is to mark, in public, the views and feelings of the demonstrators" he commented.

The judges ruled that even if Mr Catt's right to privacy had been engaged and interfered with, such interference would be "justified".

During the hearing of the case in February Tim Owen QC, for Mr Catt, who has a long history of political protest, told the judges he was "passionate" about protesting and regularly took part - entirely peacefully - in demonstrations.

He said Mr Catt had come to court to fight for "a citizen's right lawfully to manifest his political views without being labelled a domestic extremist subject to a special and apparently arbitrary form of state surveillance".

The case followed the refusal of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) to permanently delete all the data retained about Mr Catt.

The Commissioner of Metropolitan Police joined Acpo in court to argue that retention of the data did not breach either human rights or data protection laws.

It was argued that if Mr Catt won his case the police would be prevented from recording and retaining important intelligence information that might help prevent crime.

Shamik Dutta, of law firm Bhatt Murphy, who acted for Mr Catt, said: "This judgment raises matters of constitutional importance and could impact upon anyone engaging in peaceful protest.

"Mr Catt has therefore instructed me to seek permission to appeal."