0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

revealing the malingerer - surveillance of claimants not covered by RIPA

18 May 2008
Surveillance of claimants not covered by RIPA 14 May 2008

We have all heard stories of claimants alleging significant disability, only to be shown on covert video surveillance undertaking strenuous activities or scoring goals for a local football team. However, legislative provisions potentially restrict the powers of public bodies to protect their financial interests by investigating exaggerating claimants. In particular, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) have required public bodies to put in place stringent procedures to control operations such as covert surveillance.

Concerned public authorities, however, should take some comfort from the much overlooked decision of C -v- The Police (1) and Secretary of State for the Home Department (2). That was a decision of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in November 2006. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal attempted to clarify the remit of RIPA and the limits of its application. In that case, C, a police sergeant who had made a personal injury claim was video taped in public carrying out various strenuous activities. C complained that the provisions of RIPA had not been followed and that, therefore, the surveillance was unlawful. The Tribunal considered RIPA and reached the following conclusions:

The main purpose of RIPA is to ensure that the relevant investigatory powers of public authorities are used lawfully and compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights

  1. Surveillance by public authorities (or anyone else) is not in itself unlawful at common law
  2. The act of putting an ex-employee claimant under covert surveillance was not directed surveillance as defined by RIPA
  3. The phrase "directed surveillance" relates to the discharge of specific public functions where investigatory powers are given, or to use another phrase, specific core functions
  4. There is no reason why the performance of ordinary functions, like the employment of staff, should fall within the RIPA framework
  5. The covert surveillance of an ex-employee was not part of the "core function" of the police and therefore was not governed by RIPA


The Tribunal drew a distinction between the exercise of powers during the course of a specific investigation (eg a police investigation into crime) and the exercise of the ordinary function of the police authority (in this case defending its private law rights).

The Tribunal decision was that non core function surveillance would not be governed by the RIPA regime and therefore the stringent RIPA requirements do not have to be followed. However, public bodies are obliged to observe and apply the Human Rights Act 1998 and in particular, Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life. The Human Rights Act will require consideration as to whether the surveillance is necessary and proportionate to the situation.

Good risk management should dictate that local authorities have a robust system for ensuring that surveillance does not breach the Human Rights Act, however, C -v- The Police confirms that the strict requirements under RIPA need not be followed for this type of investigation.

RIPA will, however, still apply to specific investigations within the core functions of all public bodies.

focus on...

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory newsletter - February 2020

Read our latest insurance newsletter for our clients and contacts across the financial services market with quarterly updates and insights on topical legal and regulatory issues.


Legal updates

Insurance annual review 2019-2020

Welcome to our review of 2019 as we look ahead to what is on the horizon for the insurance sector in 2020.


Legal updates

Financial Services – ‘Duty of Care’ Bill: consumer protection or damp squib?

The Financial Services Duty of Care Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced into the House of Lords in October 2019 and had its second reading on 9 January 2020.


Legal updates

Issues to consider in relation to third party funded claims

Third party litigation funding was historically precluded by the common law rules against champerty (paying another party’s costs in return for share of the proceeds) and maintenance (improper support of litigation in which the supporter has no legitimate concern).


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up