Criminal

Defendants secretly video recorded at court - recording unlawful and infringement of right to privacy - video admissible because not affecting fairness of trialR v Loveridge (William); R v Lee; R v Loveridge (Christine): CA (Lord Woolf CJ, Mr Justice Douglas Brown and Mr Justice Astill): 11 April 2001The defendants were charged with robbery and taking a vehicle without consent.

They appeared at the magistrates' court where, without their knowledge, the police had arranged for them to be recorded by a video camera in the cell area.At their trial the crown sought to adduce the video recording in evidence for the purposes of comparison with pictures taken by a CCTV camera close to the scene of the robbery.The defendants objected on the grounds, among other things, that the recording contravened the prohibition in section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 on taking photographs in court and infringed their right to privacy under article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998.The judge allowed the video to be admitted in evidence.

The defendants were convicted.

They sought permission to appeal against conviction. Martyn Levett, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for William Loveridge.

Roderick Hunt, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for Lee.

Colin Aylott, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for Christine Loveridge.

Peter Johnson (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Northallerton) for the Crown.Held, granting permission but dismissing the appeals, that section 41 of the 1925 Act should be applied in a way which took into account modern developments in photography and, therefore, the video recording of the defendants at court had contravened section 41 and was unlawful; that, in any event, a court should be a building which those who had been, or might be, charged could attend without concerns that they might be videoed to assist with a prosecution; that the video recording of the defendants had infringed article 8(1) of the convention and, since it had not been in accordance with the law, it could not be justified under article 8(2) on the ground that it was for the prevention of crime; but that the breach of article 8 had not interfered with the defendants' right to a fair trial and, therefore, the judge had been entitled to admit the video in evidence; and that, accordingly, the convictions were not unsafe (WLR).