|
|
Posted by Nigel Brooks on 07/11/06 22:10
"Tony Morgan" <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote in message
news:$SosFfC8A$sEFw9m@zen54488.zen.co.uk...
> In message <c3p7b2l4lbuc53tt2hvc1b5mcvnladlfkn@4ax.com>, Laurence Payne
> <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom.?.invalid> writes
>>On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:39:49 -0500, "Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@msn.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert consensual
>>>recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are in and there is no
>>>blanket authorization or prohibition.
>>
>>If it's consensual, how is it covert?
>>
>>Anyway, this has gone on long enough. I just 'phoned my father, a
>>lawyer.
>
> ROFL.... I was waiting for someone to dismiss well defined, tried and
> tested statutes on the basis of "XXXX" says differently. Why not quote
> Lord Phillips?
>
>>Covert audio/video is admissible in English courts. Given
>>opportunity, the defence may well challenge its authenticity. But in
>>principle it's admissible, and it's often used.
>
> In which case what is your father's view of the Human Rights Act 1998 in
> the context being discussed ?
The Act applies to Governmental bodies - specifically Article 8 prohibits a
"Public Authority" - in other words The State from violating the Right to
Privacy without due process. Private bodies and individuals are under no
obligation to comply with the act.
> There have been a number of well publicised cases in both District and
> High Courts which seem to deny your father's learned view.
>
Kindly cite a couple - specifically cases involving private individuals who
are alleged to have contravened the HRA
Nigel Brooks
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|