Spy camera evidence is admissible'

Licensees can use secretly filmed video evidence to control crime, protect staff and detect pilfering employees. In a surprise outcome, a Court of Appeal case said secret CCTV filming could be used as evidence even though it contradicted the Human Rights Act. The ruling centred on a case involving an insurance company investigator who secretly filmed a University of Warwick employee who was pursuing a personal injury claim against the employer. The university was disputing the extent of the woman's injuries. Michael Ball, a partner with law firm Halliwell Landau, said: "Had this decision gone the other way, the effectiveness of CCTV in licensed premises, in particular when the surveillance is covert, may have been seriously reduced. "Prior to the Human Rights Act 1998, the court would have admitted the evidence regardless of how it was obtained. "However, the court is now under a duty to consider the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and in this particular case it appears clear the inquiry agent had breached the claimant's right to privacy. "Despite the gravity of the infringement in this case, it was still found that the significance of the evidence was such that it was in the overall interests of justice for the evidence to be available.