Smile, you're being filmed!
As I often travel by motorbike, I'd like to get a dashcam so that I can film any accidents on the road and better protect myself in the event of a dispute. A policeman friend of mine told me that recordings are not admissible in court. I wonder if he's right?
B, Nyon
Not quite, but it's not that simple either.
Installing an on-board camera on your handlebars or dashboard to justify yourself in the event of an accident seems like a common-sense initiative. In Switzerland, however, it's not the camera itself that poses a problem, but what is done with it. Images filmed on public roads may capture faces, number plates or other elements that allow people to be identified. They therefore fall within the scope of the Federal Law on Data Protection (LPD), which requires any collection to be lawful, proportionate and carried out for a clear purpose.
From a legal point of view, using a dashcam does not mean that your images will automatically be taken into account in the event of a dispute. The Federal Supreme Court has already had occasion to consider this issue in a now famous ruling, in which it declared a recording made with a dashcam inadmissible in court on the grounds that the infringement of the privacy of the driver filmed was unjustified. In the view of our judges, the offence in question - an unspectacular overtaking - did not justify such an intrusion, so the video was removed from the case file.
This does not mean, however, that all such videos would automatically be excluded from a trial. Under certain conditions, Swiss law admits evidence even if it has been obtained in a potentially illegal manner. Article 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) allows the use of so-called "irregular" evidence if it is essential to the ascertainment of the truth and the facts are of sufficient gravity. But this door is only opened with caution: the evidence must be necessary, the infringement of the rights of the person filmed must be minimal, and the objective pursued - elucidating an accident, for example - must be legitimate.
So it's not a strict prohibition, but a subtle balance between your right to evidence and the right to privacy of others. Everything will depend on the context, the way in which you film, the length of time the images are kept and the exact content of what is recorded.
To sum up: your friend is not entirely wrong: protecting yourself with a dashcam does not guarantee that your images will be admitted in court. However, when used properly - in a targeted, brief manner, without continuous surveillance - it can prove to be a valuable silent witness. In the event of a dispute, it's better to have imperfect proof than no proof at all!
