R v S

R v S

The application for disclosure and inspection of extensive household CCTV footage is refused because such disclosure would constitute a gross and unjustifiable invasion of the respondent's Article 8 rights to privacy, is unprecedented in scale and nature, is not strictly necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings, and is disproportionate given the available conventional means of investigation, the risk to the trial timetable, and the rights of third parties.

Parties
Applicant: Q; Respondent: T
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Private Law Children Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Prior to Fact Finding Hearing
Outcome
Application for disclosure and inspection of CCTV footage refused
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Evidence, Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy), Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial), Proportionality, Case Management, Domestic Abuse, Children's Welfare
Family Law Human Rights Disclosure of Evidence Article 8 ECHR (right to Privacy) Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial) Proportionality Case Management Domestic Abuse +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Q

Applicant

T

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Private Law Children Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure Prior to Fact Finding Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure and inspection of extensive household CCTV footage should be ordered in private law children proceedings
  2. 2 Whether such disclosure would breach the respondent's Article 8 rights to privacy
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's Article 6 right to a fair trial requires such disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The application for disclosure and inspection of extensive household CCTV footage is refused because such disclosure would constitute a gross and unjustifiable invasion of the respondent's Article 8 rights to privacy, is unprecedented in scale and nature, is not strictly necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings, and is disproportionate given the available conventional means of investigation, the risk to the trial timetable, and the rights of third parties.

Court Disposition

Application for disclosure and inspection of CCTV footage refused

Orders

  • No order for disclosure or inspection of the respondent's household CCTV footage
  • No order for instruction of a digital forensic expert to review or edit such footage