Admissibility of Covert Surveillance Evidence of Subject At, Near and Inside Premises - Case Study
- Martin Ryan
- Jul 7
- 2 min read
Covert Surveillance footage was obtained in respect of mainly showing the subject both outside his premises, behind railings, but in full public view, and walking from his home with his child and dog to/from school. All recordings were taken from a public place/where the public had access.
On [date redacted], video evidence was obtained of particular relevance to the subject’s case. The footage was obtained from a public place showing the subject, just inside the gable-end door of that part of the premises believed to be under construction or renovation by the subject, engaged in significant physical activity directly relevant to his claim.
It is submitted that the video recording is and should be admissible in evidence.
It was not taken by peering through a window or into the subject’s private accommodation. That part of the building is not yet habitable or used. It was taken through an open door, voluntarily opened by the subject without prompt, pretext or enticement, in clear and open view of anyone passing by in public. We were in a public place, with clear sight of the subject engaged in his activity.
The surveillance was:
Reasonable
Lawful
Justified
Legitimate
The legitimate interests of the State should not be overridden by the interest or fundamental rights of the subject
Limited in scope and nature
Proportionate
Not misleading or deceptive
Necessary
Fair and factual
Warranted
Ethical
Highly material
In the public interest
Not “outrageous” conduct
The subject’s “Right to Privacy” is not unqualified. The evidence tends to undermine the subject’s case, is clearly probative material, and clearly calls for an explanation by the subject. It is in the overall interests of justice to admit it. The weight of such evidence would be a matter for the Trial Judge.
Article 23 GDPR restrictions apply
Perrin v Walsh [2025], whilst a UK case, is of relevance
Comments