The Admissibility of Covert Video Data Evidence in Wildlife Crime Proceedings: A 'Public Authority' Issue?

Philip Glover

The Admissibility of Covert Video Data Evidence in Wildlife Crime Proceedings: A 'Public Authority' Issue?

Philip Glover

Law

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Examines recent decisions by the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service not to proceed with prosecutions for wildlife crime despite having apparently strong recorded video data evidence recorded by wildlife activist investigators.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	269-279
Number of pages	11
Journal	Juridical Review
Volume	4
Publication status	Published - 13 Dec 2017

Keywords

wildlife
investigatory powers
RIPA
RIP(S)A
RSPB
Data aggregation
Evidence
public authority

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Cite this

@article{0a2fb8ff57e142f8a4012c036499521e,

title = "The Admissibility of Covert Video Data Evidence in Wildlife Crime Proceedings: A 'Public Authority' Issue?",

abstract = "Examines recent decisions by the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service not to proceed with prosecutions for wildlife crime despite having apparently strong recorded video data evidence recorded by wildlife activist investigators.",

keywords = "wildlife, investigatory powers, RIPA , RIP(S)A , RSPB, Data aggregation, Evidence, public authority",

author = "Philip Glover",

year = "2017",

month = dec,

day = "13",

language = "English",

volume = "4",

pages = "269--279",

journal = "Juridical Review",

issn = "0022-6785",

publisher = "W. Green & sons",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Admissibility of Covert Video Data Evidence in Wildlife Crime Proceedings

T2 - A 'Public Authority' Issue?

AU - Glover, Philip

PY - 2017/12/13

Y1 - 2017/12/13

N2 - Examines recent decisions by the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service not to proceed with prosecutions for wildlife crime despite having apparently strong recorded video data evidence recorded by wildlife activist investigators.

AB - Examines recent decisions by the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service not to proceed with prosecutions for wildlife crime despite having apparently strong recorded video data evidence recorded by wildlife activist investigators.

KW - wildlife

KW - investigatory powers

KW - RIPA

KW - RIP(S)A

KW - RSPB

KW - Data aggregation

KW - Evidence

KW - public authority

M3 - Article

SN - 0022-6785

VL - 4

SP - 269

EP - 279

JO - Juridical Review

JF - Juridical Review

ER -

The Admissibility of Covert Video Data Evidence in Wildlife Crime Proceedings: A 'Public Authority' Issue?

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Fingerprint

Cite this