A case in the Oxford County Court highlighted the factual balance that often needs to be struck in deciding the lawfulness of surveillance activities when set against conflicting rights to privacy.
A homeowner had placed several cameras about his property, ostensibly for surveillance reasons to protect his home and car.
However, the range of view of those cameras was problematic for the neighbour who was often caught on her neighbour’s camera coming and going from her home. She brought a claim for harassment and for breach of the Data Protection Legislation.
The Judge deciding the case considered each camera’s extent and whether the video and audio recordings could be justified for their stated purpose when compared to the actual or potential loss of privacy of the neighbour.
The starting point was that the homeowner was entitled to use video recordings to protect his home, but where those cameras were focused exclusively on the neighbour’s property, no such justification was found and their use was therefore prohibited.
In this particular case, the Judge awarded substantial damages, although part of the factual matrix was that the homeowner had misled his neighbour about certain aspects of what the cameras did and this meant that his neighbour could not have known how or to what extent her privacy rights were being infringed.
It was also noted that audio recordings were potentially more intrusive to privacy rights and would require a high degree of justification for their use.
The importance of notices informing members of the public that CCTV or other recording equipment is operating will be helpful in ensuring compliance with the Data Protection legislation.