First legal problem:

If someone owns a CCTV system where the camera  is pointed
on their property but also has a view of a public road -
do they have to allow the police to the view the video & take copies of it?
( assuming the police want to view the information because
they need possible information about a crime. )

Is there a charge called " withholding information from the police" which could be used against them?

Could they charge the police a fee for the information?

After all - such systems could cost many 1000s of dollars to
buy & maintain & it should therefore be fair to charge money for the information.

Also - as the video is yours - surely you own all the rights to it?

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:



Wow - thanks Aussie - so you don't own the rights to your own video recordings.

Makes you wonder if you really own anything?

cheers
Bobby

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

Just thinking "out loud" here:

I wonder if you could challenge based on Privacy? Would that work if the one camera dually showed your private property and the road (as opposed to one camera showing the road and one showing private property)?

(Note that I didn't bother to look up Privacy legislation.)

Aussie wrote on May 11^th, 2014 at 3:57pm:

huh, i like this thread 

Schu wrote on May 11^th, 2014 at 3:57pm:


Neither have I.....but a subpoena will always win the day, even over privacy.

Bobby. wrote on May 11^th, 2014 at 4:00pm:


I'm surprised that very question never became (publicly) relevant when the Federal Cops raided the Office of that Canberra Lawyer who was representing Timor in The Hague, concerning that spying allegation levelled against Keating's Curly, Alexander Downer.

This was an issue dealt with by various State Law Societies some time ago.  The last position I was aware of is this:

If the Cops execute a search warrant on my professional premises (or even private for that matter) concerning documentary material I may have about a client's matter (search warrants have to be very specific - they cannot just be used as a fishing expedition......i.e. ~ take all pieces of paper found no matter who those papers are about ~ it would have to state documents relating to "Sir Bobby') then what is supposed to happen is that they are all boxed, sealed and removed to a secure place.  Then, there is an application made to the Supreme Court to determine whether they must be returned unopened or accessed.  I have a vague recollection of that process being relevant when Gillard was under investigation ~ the Cops were after the files held by Slater & Gordon.

The general principle is that Courts will always enforce the concept of solicitor/client confidentiality.  I can never be forced to reveal anything said to me by a client, and I would be struck off, if I did.  The most recent example of that was Corby's Lawyer, Tamboe (sp.)

Quote:


Schu...the Cops would cosy up to their favourite JP and ask for the warrant on the basis that a search was needed to obtain evidence of the commission of an offence.  Of course, they are meant to establish to that JP that there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that the subject premises held said evidence within said premises.  That would be an end of it.  He will issue the Warrant.  That JP.......could be Joe Blow your next door neighbour is not going to concern himself with technical niceties about what might be in legislation about privacy...........which.....in the absence of seeing it, seems to be just speculative conjecture.  If there is substance to that conjecture on your part..............when the matter is at Trial, Defence can and would argue the inadmissibility of evidence unlawfully obtained.