Posted by Tony Morgan on 07/06/06 15:16

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.
--
Tony Morgan

[Back to original message]