batfink,
Re: Your point about fimiming through windows.
There is actually a stated case relating to this exact circumstance, which allows for such evidence to be admitted as evidence. You may find this helpful:
Joyce Elliot v Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council – Reliance upon video surveillance evidence
The Claimant claimed in excess of £140,000 special damages following a tripping accident on 7th September 2000. Medical evidence had been disclosed on behalf of the Claimant to the effect that she would be unable to continue in her employment as it involved long periods of standing. The Claimant also had difficulties climbing stairs and was confined to the downstairs of her property. The Claimant was made redundant not long after her accident and there was a considerable past and future loss of earnings claim. A medical report was obtained from Mr Pemberton, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, on behalf of the Council, whose opinion and prognosis was worse than that of the Claimant’s medical expert and therefore the Council did not seek to rely on his report.
Shortly prior to trial video surveillance evidence was obtained showing the Claimant carrying out extensive decorating and notably climbing step ladders in an upstairs room. The video was shot through the windows. A copy of the video was sent to Mr Pemberton who considered that the level of mobility and function shown in the video was in excess of that complained of upon examination. Mr Pemberton was of the view that the Claimant could return to sedentary employment.
An immediate application was issued to rely on the video evidence and the reports of Mr Pemberton. The claimant opposed the application on the grounds that the video was an invasion of the Claimant’s privacy and an infringement of Article 8(1) Human Rights Act in that the Claimant was shown inside her home.
His Honour Judge Hugh Jones allowed both limbs of the Council’s application. In allowing the video surveillance evidence the Judge found that at no time did the person following the Claimant leave the public highway and did not attempt to film the Claimant in an embarrassing or compromising situation. The Claimant had been filmed in daylight hours through both upstairs and downstairs windows. The Judge accepted that there had been a breach of privacy but that it was minimal. The Judge also took into account the discrepancy in what the Claimant alleged she could and could not do and that actually shown in the video.
Costs of the application were also awarded against the Claimant.
Whilst some Claimant solicitors are still willing to run the breach of human rights argument when confronted with damaging surveillance evidence, it is clear that the Courts are more willing to carry out a balancing act and to consider the public interest in ensuring a full and proper trial takes place when considering whether to permit such surveillance evidence.
Good Luck.
Gavin Robertson
