Seek secret camcorder (like TV documentaries)

Discussion in 'Video Cameras' started by Anne R, Jul 1, 2006.

  1. Somebody's been reading and believing the tabloids.

    The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the ECHR into english law - I don't know
    whether it applies to NI, Wales, Scotland etc which would make it British law

    The quoted, and misinterpreted in this thread, Article 8 is from the Human
    Rights Act 1998.

    US law and English are very similar in how video evidence is acquired and used.

    regards

    Stuart

    www.mckears.com
     
    Stuart McKears, Jul 7, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Anne R

    Tony Morgan Guest

    No. I was specifically talking about UK law i.e Human Rights Act (1998),
    though it (like other statutes) is based on EU legislation.
     
    Tony Morgan, Jul 7, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Anne R

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    It is technically UK law but is actually EU law that has been
    incorporated, the UK parliament had no role in it's drafting IYSWIM.
     
    :::Jerry::::, Jul 7, 2006
    #43
  4. Anne R

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

     
    :::Jerry::::, Jul 7, 2006
    #44
  5. It's not an EU law.

    The European Convention for Human Rights was set up in 1950 and was based on the
    UN declaration of 1948. (AFAIK, Article 8 was one of the original articles from
    that 1950 declaration.)

    The UK ratified the convention in 1951

    The EEC came into existence in 1958

    The European Court of Human Rights came into existence in 1959

    The last protocol was added to the ECHR in 1966.

    UK government allowed UK citizens to take cases to the European Court of Human
    Rights in 1966

    The EU came into existence in 1993 with the Maastricht Treaty.

    UK incorporates convention into UK law in 1998.

    AFAIAW, there has been no significant changes to the ECHR since 1966, all that
    has changed is that UK citizens now have the right to take cases directly to the
    British courts rather than having to go through the lengthy and very expensive
    procedure of going to European Court at Strasbourg. This does mean that trivial
    and daft cases are started, much to the glee of the Daily Mail et al, but the
    vast majority fall at the first hurdle - which what they always did.

    regards

    Stuart

    www.mckears.com
     
    Stuart McKears, Jul 7, 2006
    #45
  6. Anne R

    Anne R Guest

    Isn't article 8 saying that a public authority is not allowed to force
    intself onto a member of the public. But in my case it is the other way
    around.
     
    Anne R, Jul 9, 2006
    #46
  7. Anne R

    Anne R Guest

    I don't expect to ever get near the courts. The video may well be
    accepted by a variety of other people such as complaints invstigators.

    I have made audio recordings but I want video.
     
    Anne R, Jul 9, 2006
    #47
  8. Anne R

    Anne R Guest

    I intend to go through the correct channels. It's just that I prefer
    to do so with some video evidence.
     
    Anne R, Jul 9, 2006
    #48
  9. Anne R

    Anne R Guest

    It is not necessary for the video evidence to be used in a civil action
    in the courts.

    I do not expect it to go so far.
     
    Anne R, Jul 9, 2006
    #49
  10. Anne R

    Anne R Guest


    I think this breaches code 16 (?) of the Healthcare Commission
    Inspectorate which says, among other things, that if you complain it
    should not affect your treatment.

    ISTR that the hospital's star rating is based on aherence to these
    codes although 100% compliance is not usually required.
     
    Anne R, Jul 9, 2006
    #50
  11. Anne R

    Anne R Guest

    Anne R, Jul 9, 2006
    #51
  12. The judge is the one who decides what evidence is allowed and what isn't.

    Video and audio evidence can be a double edged sword as you will have to
    disclose all recordings not just the ones/bits that fit your case.


    regards

    Stuart

    www.mckears.com
     
    Stuart McKears, Jul 10, 2006
    #52
  13. Anne R

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    Either one is inadmissible as evidence, and probably illegal.

    It is not hard to understand...you cannot do it yourself.

    If video or audio is to be used as evidence, it has to be done under court
    order, under controlled conditions, by certified methods, and the chain of
    possession must be demonstrable.

    Bobby
     
    NoNoBadDog!, Jul 10, 2006
    #53
  14. Anne R

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    Then what purpose would it serve?

    Bobby
     
    NoNoBadDog!, Jul 10, 2006
    #54
  15. Anne R

    NoNoBadDog! Guest


    The other party *MUST* be informed.

    Bobby
     
    NoNoBadDog!, Jul 10, 2006
    #55
  16. Here's an analogy: many criminals, when seeing the evidence gathered
    against them, choose to plead guilty rather than insisting on a jury
    trial.

    HTH.
     
    Gene E. Bloch, Jul 10, 2006
    #56
  17. Video and/or audio evidence is treated in the same way as any other evidence.

    I have supplied links to show this, so please cite your sources to backup your
    statement.


    regards

    Stuart

    www.mckears.com
     
    Stuart McKears, Jul 10, 2006
    #57
  18. Rubbish. The only thing you have got right is about disclosure of
    evidence.
     
    Laurence Payne, Jul 11, 2006
    #58
  19. Anne R

    Nigel Brooks Guest

    You most certainly can do it yourself depending on the particular
    jurisdiction you live in.

    For example - some jurisdictions in the United States prohibit covert
    recordings unless both parties to the recording are aware that it is being
    done. Linda Tripp was prosecuted by Maryland for secretly recording a
    conversation she had with Lewinsky.

    But that is not the case in all jurisdictions, in fact most jurisdictions
    allow covert taping if one of the parties to the conversation has consented
    (in other words the person who is doing the taping).

    Either way - the contents of the recording are admissable as evidence
    regardless of how they were obtained. The rules regarding admissability
    apply to evidence obtained by and sought to be introduced by the
    Government - not private individuals. For example, in a criminal
    prosecution the Government may introduce evidence unlawfully obtained by a
    private individual as long as it can be shown the Government did not cause
    or recruit the individual to gather the evidence.
    It is easy to understand actually - you might be prohibited from doing it,
    or it might be perfectly permissable. It is totally dependant on the
    jurisdiction you are in.


    Rubbish - Chain of Custody does not have anything to do with audio or video
    evidence. If the evidence is permitted then all that has to be done to
    properly introduce it is to ask the person who is testifying about it - if
    the recording or the video accurately represents what happened.

    Court orders have nothing to do with audio or video evidence - unless it is
    obtained non-consensually (wiretap etc). The whole issue revolves around
    "consent" - if one party to the conversation consents then it is ok and no
    court order, warrant or any other legal process is required.

    The person asking the question was from the UK and it might be perfectly
    legal for a private individual to make a consensual recording. It is not
    illegal for individuals to tape conversations providing the recording is for
    their own use, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

    Nigel Brooks
     
    Nigel Brooks, Jul 11, 2006
    #59
  20. Anne R

    Tony Morgan Guest

    Rubbish. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 can be read at:
    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--b.htm#1

    It's scope is clearly defined in Clause 1 as relating to "a public
    postal service or a public telecommunication system". It also make it
    clear that it's scope is restricted to interception of transmission by
    means of a public or private telecommunication system.

    I do wish that people did not take things completely out of context (or
    in this case - out of scope).

    I'd argue that it is transparently clear that the OP's recording of a
    face-to-face conversation without one party's permission or knowledge
    can never be interpreted as an interception of a transmission of a
    telecommunication system.
     
    Tony Morgan, Jul 11, 2006
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.