Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:52 am
Time: 3:52 am
Results for private investigations
1 results foundAuthor: Big Brother Watch Title: Private Investigators The use of private investigators by councils, public authorities and government departments in the United Kingdom Summary: The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 introduced important safeguards in the use of surveillance powers by local authorities. The requirement of prior judicial authorisation is an important change in the law and one we wholeheartedly support. However, as this report highlights, the scope of public surveillance using private investigators risks undermining these protections. Of particular concern is the number of cases where private investigators have been commissioned, yet their work deemed to not require RIPA authorisation, even in cases where the explanation provided appears to indicate surveillance was undertaken. The law in the UK, particularly the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, is broadly drawn to allow evidence to be introduced in court that in other jurisdictions would not be deemed admissible. Contrasted with the fruit of the poisonous tree provisions in the US, and broader protection offered by the Fourth Amendment, UK law risks failing to join up the evidential admissibility process and the regulation of surveillance. Accordingly, we are seriously concerned there is a gap in UK law emerging around surveillance and the ability of third parties to conduct surveillance operations without proper regulation. As the cost of advanced surveillance technologies falls, the temptation is for a number of individuals and organisations to take advantage of the covert cameras, hidden recording devices, aerial devices and countless other gadgets that are now available in a growing market. While there are many situations where regulation is not appropriate, it is also essential to maintain legal safeguards to deter the unaccountable and improper use of such technologies. Equally, as is the risk with private investigators, the arrangement may allow techniques to be used that would require RIPA authorisation, but because they are conducted by a third party, the commissioning organisation can claim it was unaware of the specific methods employed. Whether private investigators, individual citizens or unconnected third party organisations, we believe that the law should be revised to ensure that if surveillance is undertaken and the intention is to use the material obtained in legal proceedings, if it has not been undertaken by the police then it should not be admissible if it has not been authorised under RIPA. Equally, the ongoing lack of custodial sentences for those guilty of an offence under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998 remains a serious issue and particularly where private investigators may be gathering information that they are not authorised to do so. With as many as 10,000 people working as private investigators in the UK, we agree with the Home Affairs Select Committee that the current legal framework is wholly inadequate. This highlights the ongoing concern that RIPA is not fit for purpose, in failing to deal with evidence and material obtained outside the legislative framework. Equally, the changing nature of surveillance - particularly the ability to search online, through social networks and through semi-public sources of information - further reinforces the need for the law to be reformed to strengthen protection against unwarranted and unauthorised surveillance becoming a frequent occurrence. Details: London: Big Brother Watch, 2013. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2016 at: https://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Private-Investigators-Final-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Private-Investigators-Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 145627 Keywords: Criminal InvestigationsPrivate InvestigationsSurveillance |