|
|
Posted by Stuart McKears on 07/06/06 16:49
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:16:17 +0100, Tony Morgan <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com>
wrote:
>In message <12an6tprgbve6fe@corp.supernews.com>, P Darby
><DontUseThisEmail@All.com> writes
>>"NoNoBadDog!" <Diespammers@notme.com> wrote in message
>>news:a9WdnXqr_sok7jrZnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@hawaiiantel.net...
>>
>>> You are wasting your time. Any video you take without the doctors
>>> knowledge will *NOT* be admissible as evidence in court. In order to do
>>> so, the videotaping would have to be ordered by a district court judge,
>>> would have to be accomplished by trained personnel, and the video would
>>> have to be maintained in law enforcements hands at all times to insure
>>> that the video had not been altered.
>>
>>
>>What rubbish.
>>The police are asking hunt monitors to video the hunt scum, to get evidence
>>of them illegally hunting.
>>Of course it's admissible.
>>
>You are a shining example of "a little knowledge is dangerous".
>
>I'd suggest you clue yourself up before applying something completely
>out of context to what the OP asked.
>
>As I pointed out already in this thread:
>
><QUOTE>
>Such unauthorised recording is in contravention of Article 8 of the
>European Convention on Human Rights which was introduced into UK law by
>the Human Rights Act 1998.
>
>There are exceptions of course, i.e.
>o Acting in the interests of national security, public safety
> or the economic well-being of the country.
>o Acting for the prevention of disorder or crime.
>o Acting for the protection of public health or morals.
>
>These are specified in the HRA (1998), but I find it hard to see that
>Ann can include her specific case in any of the above.
></QUOTE>
>
>Your example is within the context of "Acting for the prevention of
>disorder or crime", while Anne's is OUTSIDE the exceptions listed in the
>HRA (1998) above - so is not only inadmissible in court, but is in
>itself illegal. And because it is illegal, could be (and likely would
>be) used as a reason to refuse treatment by the relevant LHA.
AIU, Article 8 covers what the state can or can't do to invade the privacy of
the individual and family.
I don't see how it applies to a private individual filming a state employed
individual whose duty of care is to the individual.
You would have to show that the medical professional's human rights outweighed
the human rights of the patient who is collecting evidence of mis-treatment.
In any case, it could not come to that as secret audio/video recordings are
quite legal and acceptable as evidence - you must have seen secret videos made
for/by insurance companies when attempting to disprove accident compensation
claims (civil matters not criminal)
AIH, I agree that, from the facts presented by the OP, that surreptitious
filming is over the top in this case.
regards
Stuart
www.mckears.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|