Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Private Surveillance
| Published date | 01 August 2006 |
| Author | Andrew Roberts |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.70.4.286 |
| Date | 01 August 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
of material underlying an approved authorisation, to determine
whether the correct statutory criteria have been correctly taken into
account and so on, all of which go to the issue of lawfulness’ (at [32]).
It is accepted that the type of behaviour that might be liable to see
evidence excluded under s. 78 is the type of behaviour that the Surveil-
lance Commissioners are there to prevent (see at [30]), but it never-
theless is the cause of some unease that intrusive surveillance
authorisations are not subject to the same transparent scrutiny as the
directed surveillance counterpart. Whether the scrutiny of the author-
isation process by Surveillance Commissioners can be as detailed as that
provided by the court in Sutherland, and can pay close attention to local
factors and conditions, is questionable.
Nick Taylor
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Private
Surveillance
R v Rosenberg [2006] EWCA Crim 6
The appellant was convicted of both possessing a Class A drug and
possession with intent to supply. The prosecution case had relied, in
part, on footage from a CCTV camera which the appellant’s neighbours,
Mr and Mrs B, had mounted on their property and directed towards the
appellant’s house. There had been a history of bad feeling between the
appellant and her neighbours. Mr and Mrs B had made a police officer
aware of the fact that they had a video camera trained on the appellant’s
house and that they were taping events there. They were warned by the
police officer that this amounted to a violation of the appellant’s right
to privacy.
In January 2004, Mr B promised to deliver videotapes of events in the
appellant’s house to the police, suggesting that the contents would be
sufficient to support an application for a search warrant. Later that
month, the police received the tapes and subsequently attended the
appellant’s premises where they found a quantity of heroin, cocaine and
crack cocaine, and approximately £2,000 in cash.
At the appellant’s trial, the prosecution relied on the video evidence
which appeared to show the appellant engaged in unwrapping packets
of drugs in the house, handing objects to others, which it was suggested
might have been drugs, and being shown how to use a ‘crack bottle’.
Forensic evidence was adduced that the appellant’s fingerprints and
DNA were on incriminating items recovered during the search. When
interviewed, the appellant denied that the drugs found belonged to her,
suggesting that they had been brought to the premises by another
person. She claimed the cash was the proceeds of sales of cars, and also
that she had...
To continue reading
Request your trial