"If your question is only around admissibility in criminal proceedings do you accept such video evidence could be admitted in civil proceedings?"
Possibly. If the tests were met.
"In criminal proceedings, the test is not whether evidence shows criminal activity.
The test is more to do with relevance. And it may not be the prosecution that wants to admit the video evidence, it may be the defence."
Correct. Whilst I pointed out that no criminal offence ever took place on the Go Pro, I never said that was 'the test' It was an observation of relevance.
"Regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained unlawfully....there are several authorities"
Correct. And again, my submission is that no authority have gained the purported Go Pro 'evidence' lawfully.
'If' the defence should ever need to use it, that would be a matter for them of course.
I'm reading all the time. :-)
....and you still never told us how 'evidence' gained unlawfully is admissible.
Standing by.
Last edited by Jetblu; 9th Apr 2016 at 17:03.