Therefore, it is important be mindful of where you are filming. If you are on someone’s property, it is best to get their consent before recording. Although you can’t film on private property without consent, filming someone on their property from a public space isn’t an offence. For example, it isn’t illegal to film a neighbour’s property from your own, or film someone on private property from a public footpath – although certain other laws may apply here, depending on the circumstances. In NSW, the following are criminal offences: In a private space, there are some activities where filming someone without their consent amounts to a criminal offence. Filming a person engaged in a private act without the person’s consent (s91K of the Crimes Act).A “private act” is if the person being filmed is in a state of undress, using the toilet, shower or bath, engaged in a sexual act of a kind not ordinarily done in public, or engaged in any other like activity, and a reasonable person would ordinarily expect to be afforded privacy in that circumstance. For example, using a webcam to film another person engaged in a “private act” must require the consent of the person being filmed. Failure to obtain the subject’s consent amounts to a criminal offence, and the maximum penalty is up to two years’ imprisonment. If the subject is under 16 years of age, the prison sentence increases, up to five years. Filming a person’s private parts (s91L of the Crimes Act).This is similar to filming a person engaged in a private act. WASHINGTON (AP) - During his confirmation to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh convinced Sen.Consent is required when filming a person’s private parts, and recording without it amounts to a criminal offence where the maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment, or five years if the child is under 16 years of age. Susan Collins that he thought a woman’s right to an abortion was “settled law,” calling the court cases affirming it “precedent on precedent” that could not be casually overturned.Īmy Coney Barrett told senators during her Senate confirmation hearing that laws could not be undone simply by personal beliefs, including her own. “It’s not the law of Amy,” she quipped.īut during this week’s landmark Supreme Court hearing over a Mississippi law that could curtail if not outright end a woman’s right to abortion, the two newest justices struck a markedly different tone, drawinglines of questioning widely viewed as part of the court’s willingness to dismantle decades old decisions on access to abortion services. The disconnect is raising fresh questions about the substance, purpose and theater of the Senate’s confirmation process that some say is badly broken. And it’s creating hard politics for Collins and another Senate Republican who supports abortion rights, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as the nation confronts the potential unraveling of the law. “I support Roe,” Collins said as she ducked into an elevator shortly after Wednesday’s arguments at the court. The Maine Republican voted to confirm Kavanaugh butopposed Barrett’s nomination as too close to the 2020 presidential election. Murkowski declined a hallway interview Thursday at the Capitol and has not provided further public comment.
She opposed Kavanaughand supported Barrett, both nominees among the most narrowly confirmed in the split Senate. The court’s ruling on the Mississippi case may not be known until June but the fallout from the week’s arguments are reviving concerns that the judicial branch, like nation’s other civic institutions, is becoming deeply politicized, and that the Congress - specifically the Senate - must do better in its constitutional role to advise and consent on presidential nominees.