Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
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.