Do I have the right to watch CCTV of a crime committed against my property?

Question

Hello,

Someone stole an item from the residence where I live,

there was CCTV in the area,

I immediately called the residence security and notified them to save the CCTV to later give to police.

I asked them to watch it, they told me I can't, they will give it to police.

Is it my right (anyone knows the law, rules, rights, etc.) to ask the police that I want to watch the CCTV footage?

If yes, do you know under which article (law number) am I legally allowed this?

I appreciate your help.

Many thanks

Answer 1

I think it would depend on who owns the CCTV camera, but they might have a policy to let the official law agencies deal with it. Once it's in the hands of the police, you might have more right to view it.

My college has subscription to English and European Community legal encyclopedias online, so I could have a look tonight, although I'm not an expert at the moment.

This is all I have found right now:

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Closed-circuit television by local authorities

163 Local authority powers to provide closed-circuit television

........

[36] Peck v United Kingdom (Application 44647/98) (European Court of Human Rights, 28 January 2003)

Human rights - Right to private and family life - CCTV - Disclosure of images of applicant from CCTV - Publication of images without masking of applicant's identity - Lack of effective domestic remedy - Just satisfaction for non-pecuniary loss - European Convention on Human Rights, arts 8, 13 and 41.

hich averages an audience of 9.2 million viewers. Again, the masking was inadequate, Mr Peck being recognised by members of his family and others

etc.........

Comment

This decision may well mark the final parting of the ways for actions based on commercial breach of confidence and privacy. Importantly, the case of Peck was decided in relation to the state of the law before the entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998. The decision is a direct challenge to the English courts to develop a right of privacy that fully accords with the requirements of art 8 of the Convention. The conclusions on art 13 of the Convention indicate that the various bodies charged with adjudicating on privacy complaints in the media sphere do not themselves afford a sufficient remedy for privacy complaints and would not do so unless they had power to, at the very least, award monetary compensation.

.................................

(8) CLASSIFICATION OF CONFIDENCES

471. Police.

Information which comes into the possession of the police is treated as confidential and must not be used for personal benefit nor divulged to other parties except in the proper course of police duty1. The police may make limited, reasonable disclosures of confidential information but only to the extent that such disclosures are necessary, in purpose and degree, to carry out the public duties of the police2. It is within the official duties of the police to give information, including information relating to offences which are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 19743, to Interpol (and, presumably, to like organisations such as Europol), and therefore it is not an offence on the part of the police to provide this information4. A police force may be justified in disclosing sensitive personal information to regulatory bodies, where the confidentiality of that information is maintained5, or to another police force6. There is a public interest in allowing an accused to make statements to the police under caution without fear of further disclosure, although a prosecuting authority's obligation of confidentiality in this regard may not be absolute7. There may be cases where third parties interviewed by the police in connection with criminal proceedings may find the confidentiality of such interviews outweighed in exceptional circumstances by a greater public interest, but the extent and manner of any such disclosure must be limited stringently by the court8.

Police documents may be covered by public interest immunity and so be exempt from disclosure9. A class claim to public interest immunity for evidence relating to an investigation of a complaint against the police10 was rejected and earlier authorities overruled, but a contents claim might apply to documents that came into existence in consequence of an investigation into a complaint of police misconduct11. The determination of the claim is for the court not the litigant and it is to be resolved by weighing the public interests in disclosure and confidentiality in the actual litigation, without taking account of any collateral proceedings12. If the police seize documents in the course of a criminal investigation they are bound to produce them on a witness summons in civil proceedings unless there is a ground of challenge such as legal professional privilege or self-incrimination13; and neither the fact that the documents are held for the public purpose of combating crime nor confidentiality between the police and the owner of the documents will bar their production14.

1     See the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999, SI 1999/730, reg 4(1), Sch 1 para 7; and police. Where a report, complaint or allegation indicates that a member of a police force has acted contrary to the code of conduct contained in Sch 1, he may be suspended from membership of the force and from his office of constable whether or not the matter has been investigated: see reg 5. As to information retrieved from the police national computer see R v Brown (Gregory) [1994] QB 547, [1994] 2 WLR 673, CA (affd [1996] AC 543, [1996] 1 All ER 545, HL) (alleged offence under the Data Protection Act 1984 s 5 (repealed)); DPP v Bignell [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 1, DC (considering the interplay between the Data Protection Act 1984 (repealed) and the Computer Misuse Act 1990); and para 582 post.

2     R v Chief Constable of the North Wales Police, ex p AB [1999] QB 396, [1998] 3 All ER 310, CA (the public identification of convicted paedophiles is an extremely sensitive matter, even where the information is in the public domain).

3     As to the rehabilitation of offenders see para 478 post; and criminal law, evidence and procedure vol 11(4) (2006 Reissue) para 2108 et seq.

4     X v Metropolitan Police Comr [1985] 1 All ER 890, [1985] 1 WLR 420. See the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 s 9(2); and criminal law, evidence and procedure vol 11(1) (2006 Reissue) para 538.

5     Woolgar v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [1999] 3 All ER 604, [2000] 1 WLR 25, CA (there is a public interest invested in the proper functioning of a regulatory body to whom the police could disclose confidential information where the confidentiality of that information is maintained).

6     R(A) v Chief Constable of C [2001] 1 WLR 461 (disclosure of allegations of inappropriate behaviour with children following criminal background check disclosed to another police force and local authority)

7     Bunn v British Broadcasting Corpn [1998] 3 All ER 552; Taylor v Director of Serious Fraud Office [1999] 2 AC 177, [1998] 4 All ER 801, HL; Woolgar v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [1999] 3 All ER 604, [2000] 1 WLR 25, CA (comments made during interview remained confidential even if not used in criminal proceedings). See also para 501 text and note 20 post.

8     Frankson v Home Office [2003] EWCA Civ 655, [2003] All ER (D) 80 (May), (2003) Times, 12 May (confidentiality of statements made to police by prison officers suspected of assaulting prisoners outweighed by public interest in allowing prisoners to pursue personal injury claims on the basis of all relevant material).

9     Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910, [1968] 1 All ER 874, HL (report on probationary constable; disclosure ordered on the facts). As to disclosure generally see practice and procedure vol 37 (Reissue) para 551 et seq. As to public interest immunity see evidence vol 17(1) (Reissue) para 436 et seq; practice and procedure vol 37 (Reissue) para 585 et seq.

10     The case cited in note 11 infra concerned investigations under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Pt IX (ss 83–112) (ss 83–106 repealed; s 108 partially repealed; ss 109–112 repealed).

11     R v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, ex p Wiley [1995] 1 AC 274, [1994] 3 All ER 420, HL.

12     R v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police, ex p Wiley [1995] 1 AC 274, [1994] 3 All ER 420, HL. See also Savage v Chief Constable of the Hampshire Constabulary [1997] 2 All ER 631, [1997] 1 WLR 1061, CA (police informer who wishes to sacrifice his anonymity is not precluded from doing so by the automatic application of the principle of public interest immunity at the behest of the relevant police authority); Nicholls v British Broadcasting Corpn [1999] EMLR 791, CA (concealment of identity of 'supergrass' in television documentary as a contractual term).

13     As to legal professional privilege see barristers vol 3(1) (2005 Reissue) para 674; criminal law, evidence and procedure vol 11(3) (2006 Reissue) para 1479; evidence vol 17(1) (Reissue) para 957; practice and procedure vol 37 (Reissue) paras 570–584; solicitors vol 44(1) (Reissue) para 90.

14     Marcel v Metropolitan Police Comr [1992] Ch 225, [1992] 1 All ER 72, CA.

UPDATE

471 Police

note 1—See now Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004, SI 2004/645, reg 3, Sch 1 para 7 (see police vol 36(1) (2007 Reissue) para 246).

Answer 2

No you can't, because rightfully its not yours.

I don't agree with this at all, but that's the way it is im afraid.

Feel free to ask the police though, they might say yeah. got nothing to lose.

Answer 3

If you don't own the CCTV then how can you demand to see the tape leave it to the police

Answer 4

By law, only the police are only allowed to request the CCTV footage.

You have no rights to obtain the footage yourself.

THey willonly show it to you if it will help in the case.

Answer 5

videos are reviewed by the police for investigation, they will tell you the results if necessary if you filed a police report for stolen items from your house.

Answer 6

Unfortunately, I think this is correct due to the data protection/privacy act.  I parked my car in a multi-storey once and came back to find that someone had driven into the side - there was a lot of damage to the car - I thought great, there is CCTV but when I asked I was told that I could not view it.  In the end I left if an footed the few hundred pound bill myself.