ot cctv

[KerrAvon]

P.s. the word this site doesn't like is v i t a l

[caytonmiller]

https://www.ids-securityltd.co.uk/ne...ed-as-evidence

From the link
Is CCTV alone enough to prosecute in court?
While there are a few requirements that will need to be met, CCTV certainly has the potential to be conclusive enough to assist in bringing about a prosecution. However, CCTV footage alone does not carry the power to enforce a conviction. Especially if the visual evidence or audio is inconclusive.

[caytonmiller]

As I see it, The biggest stumbling block is how, where and quality of the footage so whilst government owned CCTV footage would be used most public CCTV cameras are pretty useless. I guess they are ok for watching someone knicking your car. Not sure what latest stats were but it was sumat like 1 in every 1000 criminal case CCTV was used.

[crashbang]

I've had a look at the case that started this thread.

This was a civil action for breach of GDPR and nuisance. The level of damages and costs is yet to be decided. I'm not sure where the £100 000 comes from.

A bit of sensationalist reporting, I think.

The case is interesting because the judge decided that GDPR applied to the CCTV camera because it covered his neighbours property. GDPR does not cover CCTV cameras maintained for purely domestic purposes.

The lesson is to let your neighbour know that you have cameras and what they cover and ensure that they are comfortable with it. I suspect that this case was the tip of the iceberg of an ongoing dispute between neighbours.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-000-fine-land

[flourbasher]

...and not forgetting that if anyone is capturing cctv images outside their boundary then a prominent sign needs to be displayed on their property for GDPR purposes for all to see
If there wasn't a sign it's likely that the images would not be admissible and the property owner could face prosecution under data protection laws

[Ericsladkilnhurst]

...and not forgetting that if anyone is capturing cctv images outside their boundary then a prominent sign needs to be displayed on their property for GDPR purposes for all to see
If there wasn't a sign it's likely that the images would not be admissible and the property owner could face prosecution under data protection laws

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough council ruling, a sign must be shown that cctv is being used at a property, which like mine
is a small sign in my window.
Lady 2 doors away from me, had a visit from the council to tell her a sign must be displayed, to say cctv is being used, even the
cctv unit in the door when anyone visits, which her family uses for her due to her being a blind person.
My sign in the window is 4" by 2".

[KerrAvon]

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough council ruling, a sign must be shown that cctv is being used at a property, which like mine
is a small sign in my window.
Lady 2 doors away from me, had a visit from the council to tell her a sign must be displayed, to say cctv is being used, even the
cctv unit in the door when anyone visits, which her family uses for her due to her being a blind person.
My sign in the window is 4" by 2".

The council are in no position to make such a ruling. They are entitled to advise people of the requirements of GDPR, but need to get it right, which they would not be if they suggest that CCTV that covers only the domestic property of the camera owner requires the giving of notice.

Here's the guidance from the man himself: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters...-being-filmed/

[KerrAvon]

...and not forgetting that if anyone is capturing cctv images outside their boundary then a prominent sign needs to be displayed on their property for GDPR purposes for all to see
If there wasn't a sign it's likely that the images would not be admissible and the property owner could face prosecution under data protection laws

I appreciate that I am further risking my status as 'most favourite poster' on this site, but I have to tell you that is wrong.

GDPR would require the display of a notice by someone with a CCTV camera that covered an area beyond the boundaries of their dwelling (as established within the Oxford case) , but I think it very unlikley that a court would exclude evidence from the same if it assisted in the detection or prosecution of a crime.

The only route to exclusion would be via an application under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act:

In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

It is unlikley that any self-aware criminal lawyer would argue that, say, it would be 'unfair' to show CCTV of a burglar breaking into a house because he wasn't warned that he was being filmed. I hear that it is no fun to be ridiculed in public, chewed up and spat out by a judge for making hopeless applications

[flourbasher]

I appreciate that I am further risking my status as 'most favourite poster' on this site, but I have to tell you that is wrong.

GDPR would require the display of a notice by someone with a CCTV camera that covered an area beyond the boundaries of their dwelling (as established within the Oxford case) , but I think it very unlikley that a court would exclude evidence from the same if it assisted in the detection or prosecution of a crime.

The only route to exclusion would be via an application under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act:

In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

It is unlikley that any self-aware criminal lawyer would argue that, say, it would be 'unfair' to show CCTV of a burglar breaking into a house because he wasn't warned that he was being filmed. I hear that it is no fun to be ridiculed in public, chewed up and spat out by a judge for making hopeless applications

Yes that's what I said...recording beyond the boundary

I've also used the word likely in my comments about inadmissible
You have then used the word unlikely that a lawyer would ....argue that......

But then in your first sentence you say that I am wrong

In reality I would suspect that it depends what the defence / prosecution want to do in that particular case and what the circumstances are and also what the judge has had for breakfast.

[caytonmiller]

I appreciate that I am further risking my status as 'most favourite poster' on this site, but I have to tell you that is wrong.

GDPR would require the display of a notice by someone with a CCTV camera that covered an area beyond the boundaries of their dwelling (as established within the Oxford case) , but I think it very unlikley that a court would exclude evidence from the same if it assisted in the detection or prosecution of a crime.

The only route to exclusion would be via an application under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act:

In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.

It is unlikley that any self-aware criminal lawyer would argue that, say, it would be 'unfair' to show CCTV of a burglar breaking into a house because he wasn't warned that he was being filmed. I hear that it is no fun to be ridiculed in public, chewed up and spat out by a judge for making hopeless applications

Didn't they have to paint speed camera yellow to stop entrapment? Though I agree it's only if the camera is recording outside your boundary property a sign would be needed