As it's not always that easy to establish what happened in Court in various levels in the UK, as we have no video evidence, and judgements transcripts, where they are even available to the public, are not easily found, it's perhaps refreshing to see the UK Supreme Court has now started videoing the results of appeals to them, and putting them on Youtube.
This one is about an appeal from a man who was apparently money laundering, the police watched him in the street, and he then claimed that the act of watching him breached his "human rights" (specifically the right to a private life), and thus his trial was invalid.
Intriguing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHKIM4H2pQQ
|
Although I'm familiar with court process and English legalese I found that case, which was an appeal from Scotland, quite difficult to follow. The appeal was refused by all five Justices who came close to declining it as 'incompetent'. The SC was doubtful as to whether it had jurisdiction as, except for certain matters to do with actions of the Scottish Government, decisions of the High Court of Justiciary are final.
Summary: www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2011_0251_PressSummary.pdf
Full Decision: www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2011_0251_Judgment.pdf
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 25 Jan 13 at 12:05
|
|
Isn't the basic point of the court finding that the moment you go out of your door you can have no expectation of privacy? We don't have privacy laws and there's no law prohibiting photography of any sort. So even if a directed surveillance authority was not gained, or incorrectly gained, officers were succesful in introducing surveillance evidence to the court. Outdoors ain't private.
|
For those interested in the legal process - Bromptonaut
