Private CCTV - Court admissibility

DrPhilG

Long story short, I have a family member (estranged) who has a nasty habit of cruising past my property for a nosey. She did at one stage come inside the gate. She said that this was in order to post a birthday card through the door, yet she felt the need to walk past the postbox on the pillar at the gate. In reality she wanted a nosey in all the windows (it's a bungalow).

Anyway we caught her again driving past the house at about 5 mph for a wee gander, so my desire to install CCTV just took a bump up the priority list.

I'm not sure if she's even breaking any laws, it is a public road. However I would like to know when and how often she is there, and if she does set foot on the property again I want her on tape.

I have 2 questions for you fine folk. First of all, this is a high res top spec version of where I hope to install the cameras.



1 - Is that camera by the gate legal? I do want to be able to see her face and licence plate if/when she comes up. But is that invading the privacy of everyone else on the road? the picture says "main road" but it is in reality a small country road, very little traffic in general.

2 - A friend told me that unless your CCTV system is installed by a registered installer, the footage can not be admitted in court. Is that correct? I have done some googling, and I can't see anything to support this. The registration thing states that you cannot charge for installing the equipment, but you are allowed to install your own. Provided that the footage is reliable quality, and you're using equipment of a certain standard, I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed. I asked this in the home security section and nobody had heard of such restrictions.


Any advice/answers would be greatly appreciated.

Dangel4x4

Erect a set of tall gates at the entrance if you want to keep trespassers out.

I don't see the point of the whole CCTV thing just to monitor how many times a day she goes past your front gate on a public road.

hadoken13

The footage cannot be submitted in court if you do not have a CCTV sign that people can see. This came up a few years ago where a young lad was caught on camera stealing from a store and when the store showed the CCTV footage to the Garda, it couldn't be used as there was no sign for it. It is a Data Protection issue.

conorh91

DrPhilG wrote: »

1 - Is that camera by the gate legal? I do want to be able to see her face and licence plate if/when she comes up. But is that invading the privacy of everyone else on the road? the picture says "main road" but it is in reality a small country road, very little traffic in general.

The High Court has said that a surveillance camera on a householder's property, which is permanently pointing at a neighbor's property, does not violate the neighbor's constitutional right to privacy, nor his right to inviolability of the dwelling.

DPAs might arise. I don't really see how, though.

A friend told me that unless your CCTV system is installed by a registered installer, the footage can not be admitted in court. Is that correct?

No. Even if Dell Boy Trotter installed your CCTV and wires were hanging dangerously around the camera in the vicinity of a children's playground, I don't see why it would be rendered inadmissible.

There's a chance none of this is correct at all, of course.

DrPhilG

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

Erect a set of tall gates at the entrance if you want to keep trespassers out.

I don't see the point of the whole CCTV thing just to monitor how many times a day she goes past your front gate on a public road.

The front wall is about 5ft tall, the pillars about 7ft and the gates the same, a little higher in the middle! In the past she just opened the gates and walked up to the house, even if I locked them I suspect she would happily climb over the wall.

And to be clear, I was planning on getting CCTV anyway, we live in a rural area that has had a few bouts of burglaries over the years. The recent action by loony relatives prompted me to hurry up.

I'm not going to sit and monitor the gates all day waiting for her, but if there is any potential recourse to the Gardai, I want to be able to give them frequency, times etc and proof if relevant.

Either way, my 2 questions are both relevant regardless of my frequent visitor!

DrPhilG

conorh91 wrote: »

The High Court has said that a surveillance camera on a householder's property, which is permanently pointing at a neighbor's property, does not violate the neighbor's constitutional right to privacy, nor his right to inviolability of the dwelling.

The neighbour on one side might be in line of sight of one of the cameras on the house, but I would call and discuss that with her. I can't see it being any issue. I was wondering more about people walking and driving up that road.

conorh91 wrote: »

No. Even if Dell Boy Trotter installed your CCTV and wires were hanging dangerously around the camera in the vicinity of a children's playground, I don't see why it would be rendered inadmissible.

I'm slightly better than Del I reckon...

conorh91 wrote: »

There's a chance none of this is correct at all, of course.

Fair enough, thanks for the answer anyway! I suspect that it's not true, if it was I'd have found evidence when searching online. Fingers crossed someone else here can provide a definite answer.

DrPhilG

hadoken13 wrote: »

The footage cannot be submitted in court if you do not have a CCTV sign that people can see.

I have no problem erecting a sign if needs be.

Five Lamps

DrPhilG wrote:

"Long story short, I have a family member (estranged) who has a nasty habit of cruising past my property for a nosey."

What's the problem? She is perfectly entitled to do this.

Can't see the point of doing this. Unless there is a barring order in place banning her from being in the vicinity of the property she is perfectly entitles to drive on the public road and indeed stand on the public realm outside. She is also perfectly entitled as a member of the public to walk up to your front door, knock on it and say hello, post a letter, etc.

Note what the Data Commisioner says about recording in "external areas""

"Cameras placed so as to record external areas should be positioned in such a way as to prevent or minimise recording of passers-by or of another person's private property."

You do need to use a registered installer.

What you have said does not justify any form of monitoring of a public road.

DrPhilG

Not sure why the attitude? You make it sound like I'm out for blood. All I want is privacy in my own home without someone snooping around it constantly. This has been ongoing for years.

Anyway, I cannot put a camera facing the road, no problem. That quote seems to clarify that.

As for needing to be a registered installer, why do you say that? I have not found any legislation etc to say so. I called and asked the Guards, they said they were not aware of anything.

hullaballoo

Five Lamps wrote: »

What's the problem? She is perfectly entitled to do this.

Can't see the point of doing this. Unless there is a barring order in place banning her from being in the vicinity of the property she is perfectly entitles to drive on the public road and indeed stand on the public realm outside. She is also perfectly entitled as a member of the public to walk up to your front door, knock on it and say hello, post a letter, etc.

Note what the Data Commisioner says about recording in "external areas""

"Cameras placed so as to record external areas should be positioned in such a way as to prevent or minimise recording of passers-by or of another person's private property."

You do need to use a registered installer.

What you have said does not justify any form of monitoring of a public road.

This is all wrong.

DrPhilG

hullaballoo wrote: »

This is all wrong.

I'd like to think so!

Can you expand?

goz83

It sounds a bit nosey of you to want to see how often the estranged family member drives by. By all means, protect your property with the aid of cctv, but mounting a camera to point outside of your property, onto the public road is not necessary imo.

I had a complete alarm system installed by one of the listed companies in the home security forum and I was self installing cctv at the same time. The installer said I had to have some cctv signs if erecting cameras outside the home and was advisable to do so, even if the cctv was in the home. I put a couple of small stickers on the windows. There was no mention of the need to have them professionally installed. The camera on the front of the house is intended to cover the garden, but does capture some of the public road, because sometimes, my car is parked outside the garden.

hullaballoo

DrPhilG wrote: »

I'd like to think so!

Can you expand?

I don't mean to sound flippant, but not really. This topic has been covered extensively in the forum before. Not everyone agrees on the exact state of the law regarding CCTV but my view is as follows:

1. You may record CCTV of your own home;
2. If you wish, you may record CCTV of any public place;
3. Your CCTV set-up must not record any part of another's dwelling;
4. You have no obligation to notify anyone that there is CCTV set up.

This is a very basic explanation. There are other elements to this in terms of the manner in which you may deal with the recordings. Some of this comes under the DPAs, but I'm not getting into that. Don't do anything stupid with the footage - keep it to yourself, don't go into vigilante or mob mode with it. If there is something you need to action, report it to AGS or speak to a solicitor.

DrPhilG

Thanks.

I can live without the gate camera, I think the fact that there are cameras up at all will be enough to stop her coming around.

I was more interested in the claim by the previous fella that you do need to have your kit installed by a registered professional. Regardless of the mad relatives, if I get burgled etc then I want to know if the footage has any value.

Ps, absolutely no intention of going vigilante! I just want to ensure privacy. This woman has been an irritation for decades, but has become really bad for the last 7 years or so. We'd pop outside to let the dog out for a pee and see that she had been sitting outside in the car with the lights off. She would drop newspapers etc through the door just so that we would know she had been there.

We moved house a few years ago and didn't tell her. Took her about 6 months of asking old neighbours, driving around, asking new neighbours etc until she found us. Then came the birthday card through the front door despite the post box on the pillar beside the closed gate.

After that episode we warned her that we would involve the Gardai if she came into our property again.

hadoken13

hullaballoo wrote: »

I don't mean to sound flippant, but not really. This topic has been covered extensively in the forum before. Not everyone agrees on the exact state of the law regarding CCTV but my view is as follows:

1. You may record CCTV of your own home;
2. If you wish, you may record CCTV of any public place;
3. Your CCTV set-up must not record any part of another's dwelling;
4. You have no obligation to notify anyone that there is CCTV set up.

This is a very basic explanation. There are other elements to this in terms of the manner in which you may deal with the recordings. Some of this comes under the DPAs, but I'm not getting into that. Don't do anything stupid with the footage - keep it to yourself, don't go into vigilante or mob mode with it. If there is something you need to action, report it to AGS or speak to a solicitor.

Not entirely sure about that unless you have a sign saying you are recording CCTV.

Edit: I stand corrected my statement above is only on business premises.

ForstalDave

I believe you would issues with the camera by the gate as it is just recording the road and not your property, it is legal to have cctv for security purposes but there are limits, you could put one at the gate facing down to catching anyone driving onto your property and that would be ok id say.

conorh91

hullaballoo wrote: »

I
3. Your CCTV set-up must not record any part of another's dwelling;

Common sense would dictate this to be correct but is it?

The Atherton judgment I mentioned seems to rule out any constitutional barrier as well as trespass.

The Data Protection Acts do not apply to information kept for personal, family and household reasons. This seems to rule out a surveillance camera placed on a householder's own pier from coming within their ambit, even if it incidentally captures a neighbour's property. Even if a recording did come within the Acts, I'm not sure what application it would have here.

The only alternative I can think of is the ECHR. (Atherton is pre-ECHR Act so was not considered)

My understanding seems to be contrary to common sense so I would be happy if my understanding is incorrect.

hullaballoo

conorh91 wrote: »

Common sense would dictate this to be correct but is it?

The Atherton judgment I mentioned seems to rule out any constitutional barrier as well as trespass.

The Data Protection Acts do not apply to information kept for personal, family and household reasons. This seems to rule out a surveillance camera placed on a householder's own pier from coming within their ambit, even if it incidentally captures a neighbour's property. Even if a recording did come within the Acts, I'm not sure what application it would have here.

The only alternative I can think of is the ECHR. (Atherton is pre-ECHR Act so was not considered)

My understanding seems to be contrary to common sense so I would be happy if my understanding is incorrect.

Ffs, there's always one!

There is an Irish case regarding CCTV and privacy that I'll dig up when I'm not on my phone that deals with recording another's dwelling.

Could the other people posting about there 'being an issue' recording a public road please stop repeating this unless you have some law to back it up, because to me, it is completely wrong.

hadoken13

Looks like you can record what you want from your own property, so long as it is not a place of work and your neighbours have no objections.

From the Data Protection website:

The processing of personal data kept by an individual and concerned solely with the management of his/her personal, family or household affairs or kept by an individual for recreational purposes is exempt from the provisions of the Acts. This exemption would generally apply to the use of CCTVs in a domestic environment. However, the exemption may not apply if the occupant works from home. [ Where the exemption does apply, a person who objects to the use of a CCTV system - for example, a neighbour who objects to images of her/his property being recorded - may be able to take a civil legal action based on the Constitutional and Common Law right to privacy.]

Five Lamps

hullaballoo wrote: »

This is all wrong.

Do set me straight on where I'm "all wrong"?

If the OP wanted to use the footage in court then he would be well advised to follow the standard DP guidance for using CCTV.

goz83

Five Lamps wrote: »

What's the problem? She is perfectly entitled to do this.

Can't see the point of doing this. Unless there is a barring order in place banning her from being in the vicinity of the property she is perfectly entitles to drive on the public road and indeed stand on the public realm outside. She is also perfectly entitled as a member of the public to walk up to your front door, knock on it and say hello, post a letter, etc.

Note what the Data Commisioner says about recording in "external areas""

"Cameras placed so as to record external areas should be positioned in such a way as to prevent or minimise recording of passers-by or of another person's private property."

You do need to use a registered installer.

What you have said does not justify any form of monitoring of a public road.

The OP has a right to keep people off her private property. This is why some people lock their garden gates and put a mail box outside the front gate. Scaling the wall is nothing short of trespassing if anyone did this.

Regarding the recording of "external areas". DP says cameras should be positioned........but does not say must be positioned. This wording is important, as it implies that it is advisable to minimise the potential of intruding into the privacy of others and their property, but does not go so far as to say cameras must be directed in any which way.

Where does it say that a registered installed must be used. This contradicts the information I was given, not 8 months ago by a licensed alarm and cctv installer, who installed my alarm, but did not install the cctv system. Perhaps an insurance company might want it installed by a registered installer for insurance purposes, but a registered installer is not required. Link me to the legislation, which says otherwise.

I agree that the OP has no justification for monitoring a public road, but this is not needed. The OP is perfectly entitled to record the public road. Anyone using the public road, does so, at the risk of being caught on any number of cctv devices, or personal camera device.

gozunda

Five Lamps wrote: »

What's the problem? She is perfectly entitled to do this.

Can't see the point of doing this. Unless there is a barring order in place banning her from being in the vicinity of the property she is perfectly entitles to drive on the public road and indeed stand on the public realm outside. She is also perfectly entitled as a member of the public to walk up to your front door, knock on it and say hello, post a letter, etc.

...

What you have said does not justify any form of monitoring of a public road.

Perhaps not...

With reference to -

Non-Fatal Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 (''the Act of 1997")

"10.-(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where­
(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and
(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

Not directly comparable but Interesting application here

http://www.staredecisishibernia.com/2012/11/08/sullivan-v-boylan-2012-iehc-389/

hullaballoo

hullaballoo wrote: »

This is all wrong.

DrPhilG wrote: »

I'd like to think so!

Can you expand?

hullaballoo wrote: »

I don't mean to sound flippant, but not really. This topic has been covered extensively in the forum before. Not everyone agrees on the exact state of the law regarding CCTV but my view is as follows:

1. You may record CCTV of your own home;
2. If you wish, you may record CCTV of any public place;
3. Your CCTV set-up must not record any part of another's dwelling;
4. You have no obligation to notify anyone that there is CCTV set up.

This is a very basic explanation. There are other elements to this in terms of the manner in which you may deal with the recordings. Some of this comes under the DPAs, but I'm not getting into that. Don't do anything stupid with the footage - keep it to yourself, don't go into vigilante or mob mode with it. If there is something you need to action, report it to AGS or speak to a solicitor.

Five Lamps wrote: »

Do set me straight on where I'm "all wrong"?

If the OP wanted to use the footage in court then he would be well advised to follow the standard DP guidance for using CCTV.

I'd say this is close to being a record for me in terms of self-repeating but the DPAs do not apply in the circumstances giving rise to this thread. The Data Protection Commissioner has a habit of over-stepping his remit and this is another example.

Five Lamps

goz83 wrote: »

The OP has a right to keep people off her private property. This is why some people lock their garden gates and put a mail box outside the front gate. Scaling the wall is nothing short of trespassing if anyone did this.

Of course he technically has but you can also be on the property if you have a valid excuse. Posting a letter would be one of those. If you were to follow trespass to the letter of the law then we'd all be hermits.

Regarding the recording of "external areas". DP says cameras should be positioned........but does not say must be positioned. This wording is important, as it implies that it is advisable to minimise the potential of intruding into the privacy of others and their property, but does not go so far as to say cameras must be directed in any which way.

He says what he says but the OP has no good reason to record all passers by on the road in the off chance he might catch the ex (who is perfectly entitled to be there in any case).

Where does it say that a registered installed must be used. This contradicts the information I was given, not 8 months ago by a licensed alarm and cctv installer, who installed my alarm, but did not install the cctv system. Perhaps an insurance company might want it installed by a registered installer for insurance purposes, but a registered installer is not required. Link me to the legislation, which says otherwise.

Here's your link. An offence since 2012. Difficult to see how they would enforce it when a homeowner puts in their own home but could be a problem if the public were being recorded and was later required for legal use.

I agree that the OP has no justification for monitoring a public road, but this is not needed. The OP is perfectly entitled to record the public road. Anyone using the public road, does so, at the risk of being caught on any number of cctv devices, or personal camera device.

Well obviously the DP doesn't agree. What way do you reckon he'd rule if it came in front of him ...??

Five Lamps

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'd say this is close to being a record for me in terms of self-repeating but the DPAs do not apply in the circumstances giving rise to this thread. The Data Protection Commissioner has a habit of over-stepping his remit and this is another example.

You really haven't said anything I referred to is wrong.

Would have thought if anything, the DP was more an under stepper than an over stepper.

BornToKill

Five Lamps wrote: »

Here's your link. An offence since 2012. Difficult to see how they would enforce it when a homeowner puts in their own home but could be a problem if the public were being recorded and was later required for legal use

That makes it illegal for a contractor to install alarms or CCTV without a licence. I don't see where it makes it an offence to self-install.

goz83

Five Lamps wrote: »

Of course he technically has but you can also be on the property if you have a valid excuse. Posting a letter would be one of those. If you were to follow trespass to the letter of the law then we'd all be hermits.

You're splitting hairs here. I would agree that if there were to be an emergency, such as a blazing fire, then one might have a valid excuse to be on the property, to prevent loss of life perhaps. The mail box is OUTSIDE, so there is no need to enter the property boundary to deliver a letter unless a signature is required. Even then, an attempted delivery note could be left in lieu of the mail/parcel.

Five Lamps wrote: »

He says what he says but the OP has no good reason to record all passers by on the road in the off chance he might catch the ex (who is perfectly entitled to be there in any case).

The OP needs no good reason to record the public road. Your opinion on this is actually irrelevant to the legality of it.

Five Lamps wrote: »

Here's your link. An offence since 2012. Difficult to see how they would enforce it when a homeowner puts in their own home but could be a problem if the public were being recorded and was later required for legal use.

I thought you might have posted that link. In fact, it is one of the reasons I decided not to get into cctv installing with a company I had back in 2011.

The link does not apply to a person installing their own private cctv system. This was brought in to regulate the industry. As cctv is as dangerous to install as running a tv cable through a wall, an individual does not need to be a licensed installer to install their own private cctv system in their own home.

Five Lamps wrote: »

Well obviously the DP doesn't agree. What way do you reckon he'd rule if it came in front of him ...??

That's your interpretation of what the DP has written. But, like your interpretation of the PSA link, it is also incorrect.

Have you got any other links?

DrPhilG

Interesting info here folks, thanks.

To clarify a few things...

Five Lamps wrote: »

Of course he technically has but you can also be on the property if you have a valid excuse. Posting a letter would be one of those. If you were to follow trespass to the letter of the law then we'd all be hermits.

The gates were closed, there is a large post box mounted on the pillar.

I'm not sure how it would be considered a valid excuse to bypass that post box to go post a letter in the front door?

Five Lamps wrote: »

He says what he says but the OP has no good reason to record all passers by on the road in the off chance he might catch the ex (who is perfectly entitled to be there in any case).

"The ex"? Nobody mentioned an ex anything. I said an estranged family member.

Five Lamps

goz83 wrote: »

You're splitting hairs here. I would agree that if there were to be an emergency, such as a blazing fire, then one might have a valid excuse to be on the property, to prevent loss of life perhaps. The mail box is OUTSIDE, so there is no need to enter the property boundary to deliver a letter unless a signature is required. Even then, an attempted delivery note could be left in lieu of the mail/parcel.

I'm not. It all goes down to the justification of cctv. The assumed right is that you can walk up to somebodies front door if you are a valid excuse - postmen. door to door salesmen , your mates etc. Perhaps his estranged family member wanted to hand deliver the card?

The OP needs no good reason to record the public road. Your opinion on this is actually irrelevant to the legality of it.

But he shouldn't and the DP has already given his opinion on this matter and it's not unreasonable. Again what's the point of it when his estranged family member and anybody else has the right to use the public road. Unless he has some sort of barring order in place then his ex is entitled to be there.

I thought you might have posted that link. In fact, it is one of the reasons I decided not to get into cctv installing with a company I had back in 2011.

The link does not apply to a person installing their own private cctv system. This was brought in to regulate the industry. As cctv is as dangerous to install as running a tv cable through a wall, an individual does not need to be a licensed installer to install their own private cctv system in their own home.

I'm sure it was aimed at cleaning up the industry but it does state "any person" using an unlicenced installer is guilty of an offence which strictly speaking would include themselves. Obviously, I don't think that is the spirit of the law nor is it really enforceable. But going back to the OP and using CCTV as potential evidence in court. If that was the case then he may be better off having a system that installed by a registered installer.

That's your interpretation of what the DP has written. But, like your interpretation of the PSA link, it is also incorrect.

Have you got any other links?

It's not my interpretation of what the DP has written, it's what he's actually written and what his advice is. I presume that would inform any decisions that he would have to make on the matter.

DrPhilG

Five Lamps wrote: »

Perhaps his estranged family member wanted to hand deliver the card?

What's the difference between hand delivering the card through the large post box on the pillar at the gate, and hand delivering it through the letter box on the door?

Five Lamps wrote: »

Unless he has some sort of barring order in place then his ex is entitled to be there.

Are you doing this on purpose? Despite me telling you specifically that it is not an ex?

Five Lamps wrote: »

But going back to the OP and using CCTV as potential evidence in court. If that was the case then he may be better off having a system that installed by a registered installer.

I appreciate that it "may be better", but the reason for my post was to find a definite answer.

BornToKill

Five Lamps wrote: »

I'm sure it was aimed at cleaning up the industry but it does state "any person" using an unlicenced installer is guilty of an offence which strictly speaking would include themselves. Obviously, I don't think that is the spirit of the law nor is it really enforceable.

Again; no it doesn't state that. It states 'Similarly, any person employing an unlicensed CCTV or Access Control contractor will also be breaking the law and subject to prosecution'. The requirement is clearly that a contractor installing CCTV be licensed. An individual householder self-installing will not be employing themselves.

goz83

Five Lamps wrote: »

I'm not. It all goes down to the justification of cctv. The assumed right is that you can walk up to somebodies front door if you are a valid excuse - postmen. door to door salesmen , your mates etc. Perhaps his estranged family member wanted to hand deliver the card?

Yes, you are. I am pretty certain that a locked gate removes any non essential entry beyond the gate and property perimeter. If it is open, that's fine.

Five Lamps wrote: »

But he shouldn't and the DP has already given his opinion on this matter and it's not unreasonable. Again what's the point of it when his estranged family member and anybody else has the right to use the public road. Unless he has some sort of barring order in place then his ex is entitled to be there.

What the DP writes and what you interpret his writing as, seem to be different things altogether. Once again; the OP does not need permission to point a cctv camera at a public road, especially if it is not pointing to a private property. His estranged family member (you have referred to as the OPs ex) is certainly allowed on the public road and may be recorded in a public place. There are other laws, which say the estranged family member could be seen to be harassing the OP, but that's off topic.

Five Lamps wrote: »

I'm sure it was aimed at cleaning up the industry but it does state "any person" using an unlicenced installer is guilty of an offence which strictly speaking would include themselves. Obviously, I don't think that is the spirit of the law nor is it really enforceable. But going back to the OP and using CCTV as potential evidence in court. If that was the case then he may be better off having a system that installed by a registered installer.

I am also sure it was aimed at clearing up the industry. Thank the Lord we agree on something. You've misquoted and misunderstood what the PSA have said. The legislation refers to anyone installing cctv, who would be doing so, for reward. Anyone can install their own private cctv system and would be exempt from the legislation.

I sincerely doubt that a Judge would dismiss cctv footage from a private residence, just because the cctv system was not installed by a "registered installer". As long as the footage is clear and the system installation itself is legal, then there is unlikely to be any issue.

Five Lamps wrote: »

It's not my interpretation of what the DP has written, it's what he's actually written and what his advice is. I presume that would inform any decisions that he would have to make on the matter.

No, it's your interpretation and it is also incorrect. I am sorry you don't see that, but I will not explain further.

DrPhilG

goz83 wrote: »

Yes, you are. I am pretty certain that a locked gate removes any non essential entry beyond the gate and property perimeter. If it is open, that's fine.

To clarify, the gate was closed, but not locked.

But entry to the property was certainly not essential in order to hand deliver a card.

My own postman doesn't use the letter box on the front door, even if the gate is open. He uses the box on the pillar.

goz83

DrPhilG wrote: »

To clarify, the gate was closed, but not locked.

But entry to the property was certainly not essential in order to hand deliver a card.

My own postman doesn't use the letter box on the front door, even if the gate is open. He uses the box on the pillar.

Yeah, I had guessed this, but I was actually making use of a much earlier post where you mentioned this person would likely scale the wall if the gate was locked. The other poster seems to think that any desire to enter the grounds of someones property is grounds enough to do so, regardless of the efforts made by the property owner to keep people off the property.

The thread has gone OT. I think you have the answers you need OP.

DrPhilG

goz83 wrote: »

The thread has gone OT. I think you have the answers you need OP.

Not really.

I have a lot of useful stuff which is great.

But as far as knowing if DIY installed cctv is admissible in court it's still just opinion. Nobody has given a definite answer with sources to back it up, as far as I can see.

goz83

DrPhilG wrote: »

Not really.

I have a lot of useful stuff which is great.

But as far as knowing if DIY installed cctv is admissible in court it's still just opinion. Nobody has given a definite answer with sources to back it up, as far as I can see.

I'm afraid I don't have links. And it is my opinion, after speaking to the alarm installer, that any cctv, which is legally installed (including self installs at home) and using footage obtained for the protection of property, as in this case, would indeed be admissible.

But, maybe you will get an comprehensive answer over on the home security sub-forum. Koolkid is usually very helpful over there.

DrPhilG

goz83 wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't have links. And it is my opinion, after speaking to the alarm installer, that any cctv, which is legally installed (including self installs at home) and using footage obtained for the protection of property, as in this case, would indeed be admissible.

But, maybe you will get an comprehensive answer over on the home security sub-forum. Koolkid is usually very helpful over there.

Already tried over there, no joy.

Thanks though, it's probably as solid an answer as is possible without actually going to a solicitor.

hullaballoo

DrPhilG wrote: »

But as far as knowing if DIY installed cctv is admissible in court it's still just opinion. Nobody has given a definite answer with sources to back it up, as far as I can see.

That's because the admissibility or otherwise of evidence is generally decided on a case-by-case assessment of probative value vs. prejudice to the opposing party, leaving aside any constitutional issue for the moment. All of the nuances of the case have to be taken into account to make a call and unless/until you're in such a situation, there's no point hazarding a wild guess.

The first thing to say is that even on the steps of court before your application to get it admitted is heard, all you're going to have is the "opinion" of your representative on its admissibility. The difference in that circumstance as opposed to here is that your representative's opinion ought to be a professional one. Not just the views of someone who googled "CCTV data protection".

To summarise:
1. It's case-by-case and depends on ALL of the surrounding facts;
2. No one can provide a cut/dried, black and white answer for you now.

DrPhilG

hullaballoo wrote: »

To summarise:
1. It's case-by-case and depends on ALL of the surrounding facts;
2. No one can provide a cut/dried, black and white answer for you now.

No worries, I appreciate that.

My reason for asking was that I was told by someone else that this was a black & white issue, that self installed CCTV footage could not be used in court. Didn't make sense to me, googling found no such black and white instruction, and questions here seem to have confirmed that the person who originally told me this was talking nonsense!

I suspect he may have been told this by a certified installer tbh as he had his CCTV system installed by a certified guy a year or so back. Would make sense that a certified installer would spread that theory.

Not accusing all certified installers of being devious gits by the way, but it would make sense. I don't see anyone else having any reason to make such a definite statement.

ForstalDave

From the data protection website

Domestic use of CCTV systems.

The processing of personal data kept by an individual and concerned solely with the management of his/her personal, family or household affairs or kept by an individual for recreational purposes is exempt from the provisions of the Acts. This exemption would generally apply to the use of CCTVs in a domestic environment. However, the exemption may not apply if the occupant works from home. [ Where the exemption does apply, a person who objects to the use of a CCTV system - for example, a neighbor who objects to images of her/his property being recorded - may be able to take a civil legal action based on the Constitutional and Common Law right to privacy.]

So recording a public road would most likly be ok but you could be sued if someone took exception to be recorded on there way to work every morning

hullaballoo

I wonder what the Data Protection Commissioner makes of all this.

Ffs.

ForstalDave

hullaballoo wrote: »

I wonder what the Data Protection Commissioner makes of all this.

Ffs.

He is laughing his as off while looking at all our personal information

goz83

ForstalDave wrote: »

From the data protection website

Domestic use of CCTV systems.

The processing of personal data kept by an individual and concerned solely with the management of his/her personal, family or household affairs or kept by an individual for recreational purposes is exempt from the provisions of the Acts. This exemption would generally apply to the use of CCTVs in a domestic environment. However, the exemption may not apply if the occupant works from home. [ Where the exemption does apply, a person who objects to the use of a CCTV system - for example, a neighbor who objects to images of her/his property being recorded - may be able to take a civil legal action based on the Constitutional and Common Law right to privacy.]

So recording a public road would most likly be ok but you could be sued if someone took exception to be recorded on there way to work every morning

The DP is specifically speaking about a property of a neighbour being in the line of the CCTV camera(s). This does not include people simply walking past and being caught on camera. So, a passer by would have as much chance claiming damages as I have flying to the moon today.

In recent years, masking technology has been used in cctv, where the windows of private residences would be blocked out using software to blur the area of the window when viewing through a monitor. This same technology could be used to block out the entire boundary area of any neighbouring property, if it was not possible to keep the property itself out of view of the camera.

ForstalDave

goz83 wrote: »

The DP is specifically speaking about a property of a neighbour being in the line of the CCTV camera(s). This does not include people simply walking past and being caught on camera. So, a passer by would have as much chance claiming damages as I have flying to the moon today.

In recent years, masking technology has been used in cctv, where the windows of private residences would be blocked out using software to blur the area of the window when viewing through a monitor. This same technology could be used to block out the entire boundary area of any neighbouring property, if it was not possible to keep the property itself out of view of the camera.

That is just used as an exampl, it is not the only reason a case may be brought

goz83

ForstalDave wrote: »

That is just used as an exampl, it is not the only reason a case may be brought

I was only responding to the example you lifted from the DP website. If you have another example to back up what you said, my eyes are peeled.