RTE Traffic Blues legal??

askitnice

Just wondering,

I have a friend who was on this recently, they were told the camera's were filming the cops not this friend. But I have just seen my friend and while they blacked out face and car licence I was still able to tell who it was. The reason mentioned for stop on the show was not what they were stopped for. It was heavily edited, all queries about cameras removed etc etc.

As an aside to this she/he received no points, no fine, no written warning etc so no law broken. They under no circumstances gave permission to RTE to use the film, and specifically asked the guard about it but was told it was just for them.

Surely this can't be legal, and what options for redress are available to my friend.

Cheers

Our man in Havana

None as it is in a public place.

askitnice

What so I can go up to a traffic light with a tv camera and record in peoples windscreens once I blur there face I can publish it on national tv,

thats a load of bull, according to Bcc.ie there is an expectation of privacy, if my friend can be identified by me surely her right to privacy has not been upheld.

What about slandar also, if she was not fined, not given points then how can they say she was doing something which she wasn't charged for and wasn't doing btw.

Ta.

delly

askitnice wrote: »

thats a load of bull, according to Bcc.ie there is an expectation of privacy, if my friend can be identified by me surely her right to privacy has not been upheld.

Did you recognise your friend from the blurred footage, or did you know it was her before the show aired?

askitnice

Recognised from the footage and she got a phonecall from another friend who also recognised her.

Ta.

ronaneire

As previously mentioned by Bond 007, it is a public place. The fact you could recognise your friend doesn't mean anyone who doesn't know him her could after it was aired.

askitnice

Ireland is a very small place, people she works with etc will of course be able to recognise her so surely thats her right to privacy infringed. Nevermind that people will also be able to recognise her voice.

She'll be lodging a complaint with bcc anyhow.

What about the other point of slandar, she's accused of something on TV which she did not do, half the conversation with guard was cut and guard accepted she was not doing what he initially said but not included in aired footage.

Nevermind the lead in to the programme ie "Irelands worst and most dangerous drivers."

Ta.

vasch_ro

i think to be slandered you must have an established reputation that can be slandered,

johnfás

askitnice wrote: »

The reason mentioned for stop on the show was not what they were stopped for. It was heavily edited...

That is the key point in this alleged situation insofar as I can tell. The above posters are correct that provided the footage was taken in a public place, there are no real issues in regard to airing that footage. However, if the footage were to be edited or displayed in such a way as to create an untruth there could be grounds for defamation.

Can anyone jog my memory as to the plaintiff in a case which involved RTE and would be relevant to the facts above. In this case RTE were doing a television report about drink driving, as part of that report they had footage of various cars driving by near the Four Courts. One of the drivers passing happened to be a prominent barrister and noticeably so for anyone who knew her. She successfully brought a case in defamation against RTE on the grounds that the footage amounted to innuendo that she was in fact guilty of drink driving or some way linked to that behaviour.

That is the sort of thing which would be relevant here, if it were the case that someone was recognisable and that a mistruth against them was alleged on the programme - not the issues in respect of privacy.

Our man in Havana

It will be interesting to see what the BCC say. It also interesting to note that they blur every drivers face routinely unlike their UK counterparts where it is only a select few that are blurred. I also note that the UK shows also name the drivers unless they are blurred out.

Would recognising her voice be enough for slander? Certainly. Whilst myself and 99% of the population would never recognise her some people will from the voice and the image of the car which people who know her would also know.

Nevermind the lead in to the programme ie "Ireland's worst and most dangerous drivers."

Indeed that is something for the BCC to decide on. It is a sweeping generalisation alright. Considering that so many people are stopped for minor speeding and other minor infractions use of the term "Ireland's worst and most dangerous drivers" is possibly a bit off the mark.

Civpro

Bond-007 wrote: »

None as it is in a public place.

Nonsense. See any of the many, many decisions under Article 8 of the ECHR that say something different, notably Von Hannover v. Germany and Peck v. UK. You have a right to privacy even in a public place.

And without wanting to comment on the specific situation, by your entitlement may be affected by what your are told, especially if questions were raised in relation to the conduct in question.

You may also be able to sue for defamation where material which would otherwise be defamatory is not sufficiently blurred out to prevent people from identifying you. Once you can be identified, you can be defamed.

If the OP's friend is really concerned about this (and about the possibility of repeats being aired), they should contact a solicitor or instruct a barrister who specialises in the area.

Our man in Havana

I would agree consult a solicitor.

Manic Moran

Civpro wrote: »

Nonsense. See any of the many, many decisions under Article 8 of the ECHR that say something different, notably Von Hannover v. Germany and Peck v. UK. You have a right to privacy even in a public place.

From the reading of the opinions, it seems to me that that right is not absolute. In both Von Hannover and Peck, video and photograph were broadcast without any obscuration being attempted at all. Further Von Hannover did note that a balance must be struck between 'public right to know' and right to privacy, indicating that there is a point at which the scales tip from one side to the other.

Although neither case addresses it, the impression I get (Particularly from Peck) is that if the best possible attempt is made to obscure an identity so that the person in question is not likely to be identified by the average person on the street, it should be good to go. Has your friend's appearance on Traffic Blues actually caused her detremental harm? I mean, I've watched the episode, I could probably be chatting to her in the bar the next day and not know it, because I am not intimately familiar with the woman to begin with, like you are.

I think RTE's on safe ground, here.

As an aside, I wonder if the actual legal interaction (as opposed to the papparazi issue in Von Hannover or the CCTV issue in Peck) between the driver and the Garda doesn't come under the same banner as the concept that all legal proceedings must be held in public unless there is some overriding requirement for in camra proceedings. Though Gardai are not the judicial system, it very definitely does come under the heading of discretionary enforcement of the legal system.

NTM

Civpro

You;re correct that the right is not absolute (just as the right to publish what happens in public is not absolute). However, it may be worth noting that in Peck, some attempts were made to obscure the man's face by some outlets but that he was still recognised by friends and family even where this was done. The Court didnt distinguish between the two situations so its not clear. But they did refer to the fact he was recognised and certainly didnt say that the fact they had made some attempt to obscure his face/identity made the disclosure ok. The key point was that the " relevant moment was viewed to an extent which far exceeded any exposure to a passer-by or to security observation and to a degree surpassing that which the applicant could possibly have foreseen".

Its definitely arguable that that would also apply where film footage of a person was used in a way which interfered with their privacy beyond that which they were told about when they asked.

From a defamation point of view, if you're recognisable by even a small number of people, that should be enough. Certainly cases have been taken (and settled) on the basis of footage where the face was obscured but the person could still be recognise (from their car/voice/house, etc).