Putting crims on internet?
Discussion
Following the theft of two cars last week I have in mind to link the reasonably clear (Broad daylight, all suspects and vehicle used in crime) CCTV footage to various sites for public viewing. In one of the videos you can clearly see one of the tossers look directly at the sign '24HR CCTV in operation' and then at the camera for a good period of time, so they knew it was there. Where do I stand?
fatboy69 said:
It has been done before, fairly recently after the theft of a BMW, so i dont see what harm it can do - unless the thieving little f
kers see it & decide to sue you for breaching their human rights!!!
Tossers.
From what I understand, if they knew it was on CCTV then they have no right to take any action. I can't afford to pay a cash reward, but I might be able to offer a car as one, even if it's a bargain basement or banger type.kers see it & decide to sue you for breaching their human rights!!!Tossers.
lance1a said:
Following the theft of two cars last week I have in mind to link the reasonably clear (Broad daylight, all suspects and vehicle used in crime) CCTV footage to various sites for public viewing. In one of the videos you can clearly see one of the tossers look directly at the sign '24HR CCTV in operation' and then at the camera for a good period of time, so they knew it was there. Where do I stand?
A few years ago a council said it was their intent to publish video and photographs of repeat offenders who had been found guilty or who had confessed to various crimes 'against the community'. The headline was name and shame. This was challenged (by whom I cannot remember) and it was found by a fairly low-level court to amount to an additional punishment, not something that an institution can do. The law prescribed what form the punishment may take.There can be problems with identification if phototgraphs and video of suspects, expecially in the act of the crime, are published and it is a step the police take reluctantly. I can give an explanation of this if you want.
But I know of nothing in criminal law to stop you publishing the video in order to obtain identification of offenders against you or your property.
Derek Smith said:
A few years ago a council said it was their intent to publish video and photographs of repeat offenders who had been found guilty or who had confessed to various crimes 'against the community'. The headline was name and shame. This was challenged (by whom I cannot remember) and it was found by a fairly low-level court to amount to an additional punishment, not something that an institution can do. The law prescribed what form the punishment may take.
There can be problems with identification if phototgraphs and video of suspects, expecially in the act of the crime, are published and it is a step the police take reluctantly. I can give an explanation of this if you want.
But I know of nothing in criminal law to stop you publishing the video in order to obtain identification of offenders against you or your property.
I think doing it privately would be different from an institution doing it. There can be problems with identification if phototgraphs and video of suspects, expecially in the act of the crime, are published and it is a step the police take reluctantly. I can give an explanation of this if you want.
But I know of nothing in criminal law to stop you publishing the video in order to obtain identification of offenders against you or your property.
RtdRacer said:
Derek Smith said:
A few years ago a council said it was their intent to publish video and photographs of repeat offenders who had been found guilty or who had confessed to various crimes 'against the community'. The headline was name and shame. This was challenged (by whom I cannot remember) and it was found by a fairly low-level court to amount to an additional punishment, not something that an institution can do. The law prescribed what form the punishment may take.
There can be problems with identification if phototgraphs and video of suspects, expecially in the act of the crime, are published and it is a step the police take reluctantly. I can give an explanation of this if you want.
But I know of nothing in criminal law to stop you publishing the video in order to obtain identification of offenders against you or your property.
I think doing it privately would be different from an institution doing it. There can be problems with identification if phototgraphs and video of suspects, expecially in the act of the crime, are published and it is a step the police take reluctantly. I can give an explanation of this if you want.
But I know of nothing in criminal law to stop you publishing the video in order to obtain identification of offenders against you or your property.
RtdRacer said:
Derek Smith said:
A few years ago a council said it was their intent to publish video and photographs of repeat offenders who had been found guilty or who had confessed to various crimes 'against the community'. The headline was name and shame. This was challenged (by whom I cannot remember) and it was found by a fairly low-level court to amount to an additional punishment, not something that an institution can do. The law prescribed what form the punishment may take.
There can be problems with identification if phototgraphs and video of suspects, expecially in the act of the crime, are published and it is a step the police take reluctantly. I can give an explanation of this if you want.
But I know of nothing in criminal law to stop you publishing the video in order to obtain identification of offenders against you or your property.
I think doing it privately would be different from an institution doing it. There can be problems with identification if phototgraphs and video of suspects, expecially in the act of the crime, are published and it is a step the police take reluctantly. I can give an explanation of this if you want.
But I know of nothing in criminal law to stop you publishing the video in order to obtain identification of offenders against you or your property.
A public body has obligations under the Human Rights Act, but in general an offender does not have a right of privacy in respect of offending. An alleged offender does, however, have a right to a fair trial, and care needs to be taken to avoid prejudicing a fair trial. An individual is not subject to the HRA, but is subject to contempt of court rules.
Subject to the risk of prejudicing a jury, a factual portrayal of an offender could not be criticised. Be careful, however, about mistaken identity.
Thanks JandJ. That might be it, although I vaguely recall something more recent than that. I may be imagining that. As you see, there was no ruling on the point in the Ellis case.
PS: Amazing Pedantry Corner: It's R (Ellis) v Chief Constable of Essex. All JR cases these days are cited R (applicant) v (public body Defendant). The Queen is the nominal Claimant in JR cases, but the real Claimant is whoever it is that applies to the Court.
PS: Amazing Pedantry Corner: It's R (Ellis) v Chief Constable of Essex. All JR cases these days are cited R (applicant) v (public body Defendant). The Queen is the nominal Claimant in JR cases, but the real Claimant is whoever it is that applies to the Court.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 27th August 20:16
Derek Smith said:
lance1a said:
Following the theft of two cars last week I have in mind to link the reasonably clear (Broad daylight, all suspects and vehicle used in crime) CCTV footage to various sites for public viewing. In one of the videos you can clearly see one of the tossers look directly at the sign '24HR CCTV in operation' and then at the camera for a good period of time, so they knew it was there. Where do I stand?
A few years ago a council said it was their intent to publish video and photographs of repeat offenders who had been found guilty or who had confessed to various crimes 'against the community'. The headline was name and shame. This was challenged (by whom I cannot remember) and it was found by a fairly low-level court to amount to an additional punishment, not something that an institution can do. The law prescribed what form the punishment may take.http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/banged-up-1.4097...
PH mods, if this is against name and shame rules, I apologise!
Got a call from a mate yesterday after scouring the earth for the nicked cars. He says, ' I'm looking at a Volumex coupe and thought I'd ask you what it's worth'
I ask him to describe the car and he starts to give me a description which I finish for him and then tell him that he's looking at the one that was nicked.
Some scrote actually weighed it in at a dodgy scrapyard for £50.00. The supercharger is worth £1000, the split and staggered cross spokes another £1000, the new rear subframe £500, the 34K mile engine £1000, the rest £2000.
Now it's been recovered to a local centre and the who nicked it has to answer to his dad (from whom he borrowed the car to tow the cars away) who now has to appear before the cops on Saturday. Though I'm inclined to think that the fat bloke in the second video is the dad anyway.
Now for the good news.......it had a Granada parked on top of it.
I ask him to describe the car and he starts to give me a description which I finish for him and then tell him that he's looking at the one that was nicked.
Some scrote actually weighed it in at a dodgy scrapyard for £50.00. The supercharger is worth £1000, the split and staggered cross spokes another £1000, the new rear subframe £500, the 34K mile engine £1000, the rest £2000.
Now it's been recovered to a local centre and the
who nicked it has to answer to his dad (from whom he borrowed the car to tow the cars away) who now has to appear before the cops on Saturday. Though I'm inclined to think that the fat bloke in the second video is the dad anyway.Now for the good news.......it had a Granada parked on top of it.
lance1a said:
Got a call from a mate yesterday after scouring the earth for the nicked cars. He says, ' I'm looking at a Volumex coupe and thought I'd ask you what it's worth'
I ask him to describe the car and he starts to give me a description which I finish for him and then tell him that he's looking at the one that was nicked.
Some scrote actually weighed it in at a dodgy scrapyard for £50.00.Fortunately the cops were already on the way there due to a tip off I gave them a week back so they got to it before it was boxed. The supercharger is worth £1000, the split and staggered cross spokes another £1000, the new rear subframe £500, the 34K mile engine £1000, the rest £2000.
Now it's been recovered to a local centre and the who nicked it has to answer to his dad (from whom he borrowed the car to tow the cars away) who now has to appear before the cops on Saturday. Though I'm inclined to think that the fat bloke in the second video is the dad anyway.
Now for the good news.......it had a Granada parked on top of it.
I ask him to describe the car and he starts to give me a description which I finish for him and then tell him that he's looking at the one that was nicked.
Some scrote actually weighed it in at a dodgy scrapyard for £50.00.Fortunately the cops were already on the way there due to a tip off I gave them a week back so they got to it before it was boxed. The supercharger is worth £1000, the split and staggered cross spokes another £1000, the new rear subframe £500, the 34K mile engine £1000, the rest £2000.
Now it's been recovered to a local centre and the
who nicked it has to answer to his dad (from whom he borrowed the car to tow the cars away) who now has to appear before the cops on Saturday. Though I'm inclined to think that the fat bloke in the second video is the dad anyway.Now for the good news.......it had a Granada parked on top of it.
TheAlfaMale said:
Ouch! Has that left any structural damage?
Yep....damaged the A post as well as the roof being mashed. Idiots at least left the supercharger and the alloys though. I think I caught it about an hour before the it got boxed....I have a feeling they might have known what was about to happen.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff