Video surveillance could arguably be a breach of Article 8 (the right to respect for family and private life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions).
It should be noted that it is only unlawful for a public authority to breach the Convention. The rule will not apply directly to insurers, unless their insured is a public authority. But this does not give insurers complete freedom to obtain surveillance in any way they choose. The court as a public authority is bound to follow the Convention and could exclude evidence if it clearly breaches Convention rights, particularly Article 6 – the right to a fair trial. Article 6 is the means by which the Convention will be applied even to private individuals – the so-called ‘horizontal effect’.
The court will ask if the interference with the
Convention right was:
* lawful;
* necessary; and
* proportionate, which means that the ends justify the means.
