Cctv

[Startkey&Clutch]

Im not sure where to post this so will try here....

 

Does anyone know the law regarding CCTV evidence?

 

I am led to believe that if a business has CCTV which covers public highway, that it cannot be used as evidence, if it covers their property it can but not public highway, any truth in this??

[dx100uk]

i think it can going by several cases on the tv progs.

 

they certainly dont need prem to film you even on the PH.

 

dx

[buzby]

Yes it can, however there are caveats. It cannot be the sole evidentiary aspect of a case. This is due to a variety of factors, as (for example) JAI police car footage has embedded time/date and frame count data that allow forensic examination to prove no tampering took place. So a police car video showing you speeding is accepted. a third party video showing the same thing would not (unless it had the same features).

[Startkey&Clutch]

I know the police and council don't need permission but what about a business? They can record their premises, but what about a public space? I thought they aren't allowed to record a public place???

 

If there had been say a RTC on a public road could the businesses footage be used to establish blame in a court if it had picked it up in a public place? It sounds like a minefield all this proof of no tampering, I'm sure a solicitor would have fun with it?

[Mossycat]

I know the police and council don't need permission but what about a business? They can record their premises, but what about a public space? I thought they aren't allowed to record a public place???

 

As far as I am aware anyone can film or take photographs in a public place.

 

Mossy

[buzby]

I know the police and council don't need permission but what about a business? They can record their premises, but what about a public space? I thought they aren't allowed to record a public place???

 

If there had been say a RTC on a public road could the businesses footage be used to establish blame in a court if it had picked it up in a public place? It sounds like a minefield all this proof of no tampering, I'm sure a solicitor would have fun with it?

 

The police would request any and all video evidence to assist in getting to the bottom of any problem. Businesses have to display a sign stating they use CCTV and/or recording of the events seen by the cameras. There will be an element of 'spill' where peripheral to the subject matter other matters could be viewed, but there is no real inhibition unless the results in the camera looking directly into a 'private' (ie residential) location. For example, police and council cameras when fitted supposedly have 'blocked' zones pre-programmed that prevent the camera pointing and zooming into a location that is deemed private. This can even be stipulated as part of the permission to locate CCTV, however when I have seen these systems in action, these protection provisions are often ignored (or at least forgotten about).

 

As for it coming to court - a defence solicitor could object (many do) on the admissibility of it. Saying that it infringes a person rights don't usually wash, especially as it was in a 'public place'. In my residential system, I have had 3 police requests for footage where the 'spill' from my property catches a blind bend on the road, and when an accident occurs, the images are used to back up one or other driver's PoV.

[Startkey&Clutch]

Thats a good answer Buzby thanks, the way I understand it is that unless its proved to be sealed and authentic a solicitor could argue that it has been contaminated, all conditions of the Data Protection Act.

i.e. Someone has edited the footage??

Is there anything in this?

 

I have CCTV on my property and domestic is different to a business who have Data Protection issues. I know I could get into trouble pointing my camera through someones window, but thought a business couldnt have coverage of a public place.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Startkey&Clutch

[buzby]

A defence solicitor could certainly assert that tampering of the video footage is possible, but I've only seen cases where the judge would decide the probative value, and take on board any issues raised by the parties. However, if it was (say) a view of the inside of a shop and the action was outside in the street, and easily viewable 'through' the shop window it would be hard to argue that tampering took place, as the only thing I've seen successfully challenged was the date/time stamp burned into the image. (It was 1 hour out as the shop owner didn't know how to advance/retard the on-screen display. Even so, the judge was happy to accept the video as evidence (despite the objections) because it was independent of the complainant and defender.

 

As to your last point, pubs and clubs have cameras covering their entrances, so if this includes the access and pavement leading to their doors, I'm not aware of any issues formally preventing them. Indeed, I have a solid state recorder mounted onto my rear view mirror and it records my driving. I'm on public roads, and I capture the route I take and the vehicles I pass or are in line with. The images are overwritten after 2 hours, but don;t forget buses have the same facility and have external cameras front and back, do there's a lot of coverage out there!

[Startkey&Clutch]

What about if the camera was covering a car park and on the outskirts of the frame it picked up a public road. On this road there was say as per the earlier example a RTC, because its on the outskirts of the frame the quality is poor and the framerate is low, could you use this evidence or would it be thrown out as obtained illegally or because the quality is poor. If you couldnt make out a number plate or faces would it still be admissable?

[buzby]

There's no 'illegality' even if the frame rate was 1 per 5 seconds, and it covered what was required (as a bonus to its true function) then either party can seek to use this as evidence to support their position. It would then be up to the party that objected to try and throw doubt on what the evidence shows, but I don't see how it can be prevented from being used if the aim is simply to suppress it on the basis it shows the defender in a disadvantageous position.

[Startkey&Clutch]

Thats all fine...

 

Hope Im not going off topic now but lets suppose there had been this accident picked up on this CCTV and it was clear that someone diliberatly caused an accident, would the police prosecute or just leave it for insurance?

[buzby]

Outwith my scope of knowledge, you;d need to ask them! I do recall though, that police used a shop's TV to prosecute a [EDIT] operating outside the store to con money from pensioners. He was pleading not guilty until the video evidence was offered, and the plea changed.

[labrat]

on a side note...

 

ive had a problem with several boy racers on our road, seen as its a cauldisack i know exactly where they are coming from....

 

the problem is im trying to build an anti social diary, for example last night they reversed down our road at an estimated 30mph, you can imagine the noise, it woke our son, screaming and meant nearly no sleep for the night.

 

is it legal for me to set a motion detection webcam covering our front garden if it also views part of the road...

 

there is already one on the back garden due to someone releasing the rabbits 3 nights in a row

[buzby]

Residential security is a slightly different ballgame - there is no requirement to seek permission, and/or a DPA registration. Assuming the camera is on your property, and the image shows part of your property curtilage, you are entitled to do it.

 

Assuming something happens, and you need to involve the police, you can show them the images, and perhaps email the file to the ivestigating officer. It probably will not be used for formal evidence, but enough to assist the police with their enquiries.

[dx100uk]

on a side note...

 

ive had a problem with several boy racers on our road, seen as its a cauldisack i know exactly where they are coming from....

 

the problem is im trying to build an anti social diary, for example last night they reversed down our road at an estimated 30mph, you can imagine the noise, it woke our son, screaming and meant nearly no sleep for the night.

 

is it legal for me to set a motion detection webcam covering our front garden if it also views part of the road...

 

there is already one on the back garden due to someone releasing the rabbits 3 nights in a row

 

pers i like the direct approach

 

a flash camera works wonders

 

as soon as you see them, get out in the garden with your flash going off

 

works a treat!

 

between 3 of us we got rid of a persistant group of boy racers using our road and a local wood for just that and dope smoking.

 

after only 3 weeks, 4 cars were seized under section 59. 2 drivers were charged with being under the effluence of drink or drugs.

 

you only have to provide two separate bits of evidence for a section 59 to be taken out.

 

just fwd the info to your local bobby

 

you can look that up on your local police website and send it direct to him.

 

dx

[Bookworm]

Residential security is a slightly different ballgame - there is no requirement to seek permission, and/or a DPA registration. Assuming the camera is on your property, and the image shows part of your property curtilage, you are entitled to do it.

.

Slight addition: If part of the coverage will cover partly the public highway, then you must have a warning sign that CCTV is in operation. That's all you need to do to comply with the DPA.

 

I have had to install cameras on my house, as our fences were getting vandalised on a regular basis, and the system I bought came with the stickers, which was great!

[Startkey&Clutch]

Slight addition: If part of the coverage will cover partly the public highway, then you must have a warning sign that CCTV is in operation. That's all you need to do to comply with the DPA.

 

I have had to install cameras on my house, as our fences were getting vandalised on a regular basis, and the system I bought came with the stickers, which was great!

 

So if you were to use a road that the CCTV picked up and there were no signs on that road, that would breach the data protection act?

[buzby]

Can you point to a reference to this amendment? (Residential users have NO REQUIREMENT to erect signage, if the purposes of the cameras are for home security). This was clarified by the ICO at the start.

 

Interestingly, there are users who place such signage when there is NO CCTV at the locus (nor a requirement to display) using the sign as a deterrent in itself.

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/faqs/data_protection_for_the_public.aspx#f89CC45B4-580B-4FCD-98A2-278DE2D7446C

Edited May 3, 2010 by buzby

[Bookworm]

You've quoted it yourself with that link. :-?

 

The use of cameras for limited household purposes is exempt from the DPA. This applies where an individual uses CCTV to protect their home from burglary, even if the camera overlooks the street or other areas near their home.

If you intend to use the cameras for monitoring anti-social behaviour adjacent to your property for instance, may not come under a "household" purpose. To avoid any potential challenge, a sticker/sign will make sure there can be no comeback. ;-)

 

So if you were to use a road that the CCTV picked up and there were no signs on that road, that would breach the data protection act?

No. There may be a breach by a person/company if that person/company hadn't put signs in place on their premises near the cameras, but you can't possibly expect anyone to have signs everywhere within the field covered by the cameras. :-?

[buzby]

You're getting bogged down in semantics. There is no 'limitation' to the use of residential cameras. If it is on your property and shows within the image your property, no problem. If it covers neds doing anti social things in the street, there's still no problem. You could not use it as evidence, but the police could ask for the recorded images if you had them. The DPA is clear, as is the ICOs advice.

[Bookworm]

*sigh* how to create arguments when there is no need.

 

Can't be asked. S&K, sorry about this, hope this was useful to you, if not, better contact the ICO.

 

Bookie, out.

[buzby]

No argument from me.

 

Just pointing you were misreading of the rules (and misdirecting the OP). The link provided confirmation the the householder's right to use CCTV without registration.

[Startkey&Clutch]

I dont want to cause any problems.......

 

My question isnt about residential cameras, its about a business using them, I know the rules are different.

If a business camera caught something on a public road which it shouldnt be looking at, could it be used as evidence in court or could a solicitor get it thrown out?

[buzby]

Already answered - even if the police use the image it will be to support their case, it may not be used for evidential purposes at all. The CCTV owner has nothing to fear from providing the police with a copy of the video, and assuming the shop premises had signs stating it had CCTV. there is no DPA breach (although irrelevant to police usage).

[Startkey&Clutch]

Already answered - even if the police use the image it will be to support their case, it may not be used for evidential purposes at all. The CCTV owner has nothing to fear from providing the police with a copy of the video, and assuming the shop premises had signs stating it had CCTV. there is no DPA breach (although irrelevant to police usage).

 

Sorry Im a layman..

 

"evidential purposes"?

So it cant be put before a court?