Mesopause
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2018
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- United Kingdom
I would appreciate any considered responses from those more familiar with recent legal cases in the UK, EU or territories aligned with the UK, where legal precedent is more relevant.
(1) A neighbour (only one) has a short, private right of way over private land. This was created decades before dashcams existed, and so could never have been in the contemplation of a party to include in the grant of right to pass.
(2) The neighbour has a long history, on police record, of being obsessed with capturing adjoining property and has even been reported for taking photos on private land at 1am.
(3) The neighbour now uses dashcam footage to feed his irrational hatred of the other property owner. He is seen to press the 'protect' button whenever he sees the owner of the private property walking around, going about his business in a lawful, peaceful manner. Many of these captures include children.
So, my question is really about any precedent or other legal knowledge that means, at the very least, the use of such footage captured on private land where no consent to capture has been granted would be inadmissible for evidential purposes and, better, that the use of his dashcam for surveillance of private citizens on their private land is in fact unlawful.
If you want to rant on about throwing things at the camera, I don't want to hear from you.
(1) A neighbour (only one) has a short, private right of way over private land. This was created decades before dashcams existed, and so could never have been in the contemplation of a party to include in the grant of right to pass.
(2) The neighbour has a long history, on police record, of being obsessed with capturing adjoining property and has even been reported for taking photos on private land at 1am.
(3) The neighbour now uses dashcam footage to feed his irrational hatred of the other property owner. He is seen to press the 'protect' button whenever he sees the owner of the private property walking around, going about his business in a lawful, peaceful manner. Many of these captures include children.
So, my question is really about any precedent or other legal knowledge that means, at the very least, the use of such footage captured on private land where no consent to capture has been granted would be inadmissible for evidential purposes and, better, that the use of his dashcam for surveillance of private citizens on their private land is in fact unlawful.
If you want to rant on about throwing things at the camera, I don't want to hear from you.