• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

Man in court for removing camera spying on his bedroom

This story from the Cumbria News and Star is so remarkable, it merits full exposure on Big Brother Watch this morning.

Keyholespying Christian Lord was living with his girlfriend in Harraby, Carlisle, when he became aware of a CCTV camera installed in the empty house opposite, trained on his bedroom.

Fed up of the surveillance, which was also exacerbating his girlfriend's mental health problems, Mr Lord broke into the empty house and threw the camera in a nearby river.

Yesterday, the 35-year-old pleaded guilty at Carlisle Crown Court to a charge of burglary and the theft of the £1,500-worth of surveillance equipment. He was put under 12 months’ probation supervision and ordered to undergo drugs rehabilitation.

Now a selection of quotes from Judge Peter Hughes QC, who said he was "puzzled" by who installed the camera.

“Under what authority was it done?” he asked. “There are human rights considerations here.”

Judge Hughes told Lord that if the device had been installed by the police as part of a criminal investigation the offence would have been much more serious. “But that is not the situation I have to deal with,” he said. “It is unclear why and on what basis this camera was installed.

“But plainly you and your partner were aware of its presence watching your activities and you took exception to it. While in no way can I condone your actions, this is far removed from a typical case of burglary. It seems you did it just to stop yourself being snooped upon.”

Given those comments from the judge, the sentence Mr Lord received seems ridiculously harsh.

Or is it symptomatic of the complete devaluation of privacy in society? The real crime here is the camera removing Mr Lord's right to a private life.

And when you look at it like that, the judge most definitely had the wrong man in court.

By Dylan Sharpe

Posted on September 16, 2010 by Big Brother Watch Posted in CCTV, Privacy
  • http://deansonline.net/ Paul Dean

    Unanswered questions:
    o was the camera recording?
    o did the Mr Lord attempt to contact the owners of the house?
    o who brought the case against him? It must be the owners and they should have to answer what the camera was doing before the judge can pass judgment.

  • http://ampers.wordpress.com Andrew Ampers Taylor

    @Paul Dean – yes, good points.
    And the sentence might have been kinder than we think depending on whether the man in question wanted to get off drugs or not.
    Having sat in court watching court cases many years ago out of interest I quickly came to realise that, unless you are there and hear the whole proceedings, it is very easy to get the wrong end of the stick from articles.
    Ampers

  • mrmovie

    a ladder, some tape and a black plastic bag would have done the trick.
    two wrongs do not make a right

  • http://fuelinjectedmoose.blogspot.com/ Bucko

    What an unusual story.
    Who made the complaint against this chap for destroying thier camera?
    Who ownes the house that the camera was set up in?
    Why did he break into the house and throw the camera in the river? Did he attempt to deal with this in any other way previously?
    What happened to the tape?
    There seem to be a lot of question here that are unanswered or not reported.

  • Slacker

    > a ladder, some tape and a black plastic bag would have done the trick.
    Seconded. I think there’s been more content left out of this story than there is in it.

  • http://www.thefinancesblog.com/ Happiness

    I find the UK odd at times.
    CCTV cameras trained on a people’s houses, nosey parkers listening to private phone calls and covertly logging onto people’s private computers, and yet when one of their very own genius spies gets murdered at MI6, nobody saw or heard a thing.
    Very bizarre indeed, isn’t it?

  • NeverSurrender

    This is barking mad! Christian Lord should not have had to take matters into his own hands. He should have been able to complain to the police who should have acted on his behalf and demanded that the owners remove the camera or face punishment. The problem lies with the ludicrous state of privacy laws in the UK. Come on coalition government! Sort this out!

  • Ian Orlebar

    It is greatly to be hoped that Mr Lord has made his MP fully aware of the details, and that a question will be raised in the House so that it is brought to the attention of the coalition government.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/leatonnick Nick Leaton

    Being devil’s advocate.
    The state has more to lose from the citizen watching the state than vice versa. Be prepared for laws that prevent you from turning the tables.
    For example, record all conversations with them. Then if they contradict themselves, tough. Evidence is there.
    Broadcast via the web decisions in the citizen’s favour. It’s hard for the state to appeal its own decisions.
    For example, the HMRC mess over taxation. Civil disobediance by mass appeals is going to cause a problem. If one case is one, then all appeal on the same grounds, with the evidence from the first appeal. HMRC can’t appeal its own decisions, so it has to change the law. In this case retrospectively like other cases. It also increases the costs (not a good thing), but that also means it will drive up the threshold where it writes the money off.
    Roll on continuous TV records of everything you see.
    Roll on mobiles that record automatically all your conversations. If that was available I would buy such a phone without question.
    Nikc

  • Denis Joe

    IOn the USA this would probably not gone to court as there is a sort of get-out for taking action against the state and the use of a CCTV camera that was aimed at a civilians window would have been deemed illegal. And rightly so.
    The other issue that has been (idiotically) dealt with by one commentator (above) is the issue of the court forcing Mr Lord into druig councelling. The courts are using these method more and more these days. The decision to alter one’s lifestyle has to be left in the hands of the individual. the continued use of orders of this kind not only interferes with the autonomy of the individual but also makes rehabillitation out to be a form of punishment rather than an avenue for those who wish to deal with their drug or alcohol problem.

  • Denis Joe

    IOn the USA this would probably not gone to court as there is a sort of get-out for taking action against the state and the use of a CCTV camera that was aimed at a civilians window would have been deemed illegal. And rightly so.
    The other issue that has been (idiotically) dealt with by one commentator (above) is the issue of the court forcing Mr Lord into druig councelling. The courts are using these method more and more these days. The decision to alter one’s lifestyle has to be left in the hands of the individual. The continued use of orders of this kind not only interferes with the autonomy of the individual but also makes rehabillitation out to be a form of punishment rather than an avenue for those who wish to deal with their drug or alcohol problem.

  • http://woodworking-books.org woodworking projects for childrens rooms

    CCTV cameras trained on a people’s houses, nosey parkers listening to private phone calls and covertly logging onto people’s private computers.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnallmanuk John Allman

    We’ve got a CCTV camera pointing out of our window, to catch the people who keep vandalising our car, costing £100 a time that the insurance doesn’t cover, which we cannot afford. Unavoidably, the windows of the house opposite are in view. Is anybody seriously suggesting that the state should legislate itself the power to prosecute us for what we are doing?

  • http://shedplansandwoodworking.com/ Matt@ shed plans

    This is bizarre, I’m not really sure what to say regarding this. A bit suspicious on the part of owner of the camera. hhmmm…

  • angela

    I actually live in the area and the camera was put there to monitor his movements as a suspected drug dealer i think he got off lightly considering the trouble he causes. And his girlfriend mental? thats because of the drugs she takes. Call me harsh but like people have said the article missed out alot of important blanks. It was in fact the police who set it up(not sure why the courts didnt know this) and the house belnged to the local housing association Riverside+