Originally Posted by
parabellum
Quite possibly wrong but I have always thought that one had to prove damage for a trespassing charge to stick?
A Sydney, Australia lawyer, told me very recently that it is an offence to photograph someone without their permission, being careful to draw the line between deliberately taking a persons picture, without their permission and taking a picture that included a person but who was not the object of the picture. This was all related to drones but the lawyer did say that certain laws about taking a persons picture applied across the board . The photographer on the Ryan Air aircraft was, I think, without a doubt, photographing the man who was engaged in the dispute. IF the audio and visual here is illegal would it be inadmissible too? As soon as the defence can get two or three witnesses contradicting each other the case would surely be lost?
If he told you that, he was quite wrong. In Australia, there is no right to privacy under the general law. Anyone can take your picture, whether on private property or otherwise. The only carve outs from that general proposition are places where you can reasonably expect to have privacy, such as a change room or toilet. in NSW there is an offence of “voyeurism”. Using a drone to film someone might - depending on the circumstances - amount to voyeurism, public nuisance or stalking, but it’s not prima facie unlawful.
The idea that that evidence obtained in breach of a contract of carriage would not be admissible in a criminal proceeding seems pretty unlikely. Even if it was obtained in breach of the criminal law, the courts (at least in the UK and Oz) have a discretion to admit it.