KB-2023-000278 - [2025] EWHC 2536 (KB)

The Claimant alleges that TSG have deliberately edited the Claimant out of the served edited footage and that this was a dishonest attempt to present the surveillance evidence in a way prejudicial to the Claimant. Furthermore, the Claimant alleges that (at least) three TSG employees have misled the Court by filing witness statements, endorsed with statements of truth, that are untrue. These are allegations of the utmost severity and therefore I will address them in some detail.

The first editing issue relates to footage of the Claimant putting rubbish out on 16 June 2022. It appears that two operatives were separately and simultaneously recording the Claimant on that day. I have reviewed the relevant edited and unedited footage as provided within the Claimant’s sample. What that shows is that the first operative had sight of the Claimant for most of the relevant passage of time and films her dealing with rubbish and seemingly walking away from her front door with it. That footage was served by the Defendant within the initial tranche of edited footage. What was not served was footage taken by the second operative, which showed the Claimant reaching the end of her driveway with the rubbish bags. Whilst the operatives were filming the same activity overall, some of the activity was captured by the first operative and some only captured by the second operative, with the second operative’s footage excluded from the original edited footage served. The relevant clips of footage from the second operative lasted for a total of approximately 31 seconds.

In the initial witness statement served alongside the edited footage from Ms Harveen Johal, endorsed with a statement of truth, she said:

“4.

I can confirm that I transferred all of the unedited footage from the SD cards supplied to me from our employees, named in Paragraph 2, on to a secure server. This unedited footage can be provided upon request.

5.

I also created a working copy of the unedited footage, which I subsequently edited and printed as a video file. I can confirm that no footage of the claimant has been omitted from the edited video file. Our client was provided with a copy of this edited video file either by file transfer or by DVD.

6.

The edited video file featured in Paragraph 5 is a sequence of events of footage obtained by the team of operatives. Footage obtained by each operative is edited together chronologically to show, as seamless as possible, a series of events displaying the movements of the claimant on the given dates.” (Emphasis added)

As my summary in the paragraph above shows, paragraph 5 of Ms Johal’s statement is unequivocally untrue as footage from the second operative was not included in the edited surveillance footage served and thus footage of the Claimant had been omitted from the edited video file and the footage from the operatives had not been edited together to show the series of events. The Claimant alleges that the pieces of footage edited out were “clearly helpful to the Claimant” and that they had been deliberately edited out as they showed the Claimant limping.

A further statement was served from Ms Johal for this hearing, dated 14 July 2025. There are several contentions within that statement which the Claimant alleges are untrue and provide further examples of an employee of TSG misleading the Court by way of a witness statement endorsed with a statement of truth. Some examples are as follows:

A statement was also served from Mr Wittering, TSG’s Operations Manager. Mr Wittering makes several contentions relevant to editing, some of which I address below:

I do not find favour with the Claimant’s suggestion that the omitted footage is clearly helpful to the Claimant or that “the only reasonable interpretation is that this was done as this piece of surveillance was helpful to the Claimant” as asserted by the Claimant’s Solicitor. At most, it is neutral. There is some argument that it is more beneficial to the Defendant given the range of motion the Claimant demonstrates as she stoops down. Insofar as limping is concerned, the served edited footage clearly shows the Claimant limping. The additional 30 seconds of footage in this case does not take that issue materially further forward, to my mind. This weighs in favour of Ms Johal’s explanation that the editing failures were human errors rather than misfeasance. However, I do agree with the Claimant’s Solicitor’s contention that it is highly surprising and disappointing that TSG employees have put their July 2025 statements before the Court making assertions that are patently untrue, particularly given the concerns about TSG’s conduct that had been raised by the Claimant.

The next two editing issues of concern relate to 21 June 2024, where the Claimant was preparing to go to and then attending a medicolegal appointment with one of the Defendant’s experts. Ms Ashworth avers that the surveillance evidence has been “manipulated”. The editing was performed by Ms Fateha Begum. The first piece of editing involved omitting footage of the Claimant leaving her property and entering the passenger seat of the vehicle to be driven to the appointment by her husband. The removed footage lasted for just over 50 seconds. I can see no justifiable reason to have edited that footage out, nor was one presented to the Court. The second piece of editing is of the Claimant alighting from the vehicle at the venue of the medicolegal examination and lasts for just under 50 seconds. Very little of the Claimant can be seen in that footage as the Claimant is obscured by vehicles parked in the car park. One can see, however, that the Claimant’s husband appears to assist with the car door.

Much like the footage of the Claimant omitted on 16 June 2022, I do not believe that the removal of that footage is materially beneficial to the Defendant. The footage shows the Claimant limping, but she is seen to be limping at other times on other footage. Whilst I fully agree that it should not have been removed from the edited footage, I cannot see that the Defendant would have received a material advantage from its omission.

The first statement of Ms Begum followed the same pro forma as that completed by Ms Johal. As such, it contains the same sentence about no footage of the Claimant having been edited out. Like Ms Johal’s statement, it is untrue. Footage of the Claimant was undoubtedly edited out.

A further statement was served from Ms Begum for this hearing following the directions I gave in May 2025. Ms Begum asserts that the omission of the footage of the Claimant was “oversight andhuman error” and that she could not explain why she failed to include the omitted parts but that it was “unintentional”. She states that, “…no footage of the Claimant should have been omitted from the edited video I created in line with the guidance and instruction I have received throughout my employment with The Surveillance Group”. The inability to provide any substantive understandable explanation is troubling.

The criticisms of Ms Begum do not end there. Further complaints are made about the editing of footage on 24 and 26 June 2024 when the Claimant was seemingly taking her mother to the hospital. The Claimant alleges that this was done to create the impression that she had been driving and/or out of the house on her own for longer than she had.

I have reviewed the removed footage in relation to the visit to the hospital on 24 and 26 June 2024. To my mind, it is at best neutral or may even assist the Defendant. It seemingly shows the Claimant removing a rollator from the rear of her vehicle whilst simultaneously using a mobile telephone with her other hand. The removed commentary suggests that the Claimant had pushed her mother in a wheelchair. I cannot see how the removal of that footage would have been beneficial to the Defendant, which again militates against the argument that there has been a dishonest manipulation of the surveillance evidence in the Defendant’s favour. I also do not understand the Claimant’s submission that the editing of the footage would imply that she was out and/or driving for a longer period that she was. Whilst I fully accept that it should not have been edited out, I cannot see any evidence to substantiate a malign motive with respect to this specific tranche of footage or that the removal of it would have been harmful to the Claimant’s case. Indeed, it may in fact reinforce the view that the editing in this case performed by Ms Begum whilst negligent, was not calculated to assist the Defendant.

Ms Begum is further criticised by the Claimant with regards to her dealing with footage obtained by a Mr Marian Trofin, to which I will return below as this goes beyond concerns about editing. Ms Begum has not acquitted herself well there either.

I should also specifically address the allegations regarding editing of footage obtained on 5 April 2023. On that date, which I will return to again below, footage was obtained of the Claimant shopping with her mother at a supermarket. Footage was later obtained of a male, believed to be the Claimant’s husband, unloading shopping bags and bags of compost from the Claimant’s vehicle. There was also commentary stating that the male had helped unload the vehicle and the Claimant had been seen taking items from the vehicle, however they were small in size. This later footage was not included in the served edited footage pack. The Claimant alleges that this footage has been deliberately excluded as it is helpful to the Claimant’s case and “clearly relevant” in the context of this case as it demonstrates the Claimant receiving assistance from her husband. Mr Wittering explains that the Claimant’s husband was not the subject of surveillance, so footage of him would be excluded. No evidence has been provided by the TSG case handler who edited this footage.

I understand from the evidence before me that the editing of the footage would have taken place relatively soon after the footage was obtained. The issues in cases such as this evolve and may crystalise later. I can perfectly understand that the precise nature of what was being said about the Claimant’s ability to carry shopping, and the like would not have been known (or fully known) in April 2023. Indeed, the Particulars of Claim were not even signed until 18 May 2023. Given that the Claimant’s husband was not the subject of surveillance, I can see why footage obtained of him was not served with the edited footage. Importantly, it was taken and retained as part of the unedited footage. It can therefore be placed before the Court. I am again reassured that the fact that this footage was retained, and the Claimant made aware that there was further unedited footage, militates against the Claimant’s contention that there has been a deliberate manipulation of evidence to exclude evidence helpful to the Claimant as the unedited footage would always have been available.

Criticism is made of the editing out of commentary provided by the surveillance operatives when undertaking the surveillance, particularly where operatives used phrases that, on the Claimant’s account, are supportive of her disabilities, such as her lifting something “small” or making “short” journeys. I have not been provided with any substantive explanation from TSG as to why that is the case, save that it is explained that narration that was not over any footage of the Claimant would not have been included as it was not relevant. The Claimant describes Mr Wittering’s assertions on this as being “disingenuous”.

In my judgment, it is not for the surveillance operatives to provide commentary that could be seen to be usurping the role of the trial judge. Whether an item being carried is heavy or large is something that the surveillance operatives will be no better able to comment on than the trial judge; it will be a finding that can be made from watching the footage. Where there is knowledge unique to the surveillance operative and which is not immediately apparent from the footage, such as a short distance having been driven or the like, it is appropriate for the surveillance operatives to comment to give the appropriate context as to what the footage shows. That knowledge is unique to the surveillance operatives and may not be readily ascertainable to someone simply watching the footage given that the footage is not being constantly recorded. It is not clear to me whether there has been selective editing out of certain aspects of commentary as I have not seen all the footage or listened to all the commentary available. As I have referred to above, some commentary has been edited out that was arguably helpful to the Defendant. There do appear to be instances where commentary that the Claimant might have wanted in the footage has been edited out. I am not convinced that there has been a deliberate targeting of that commentary, and in any event, it has been served in the unedited footage.

Other criticisms made by the Claimant are significantly weaker and were, correctly, not pursued with any vigour by Ms Ashworth. For example, the Claimant argued that a piece of commentary was removed from the footage obtained on 10 May 2024 where the operative suggested that he was either on, or blocking, someone else’s drive. The Claimant alleges that this has been omitted by TSG “presumably because it does not reflect well on the surveillance operative”. I am far from convinced that the surveillance operative was doing any more than blocking someone’s drive. I am even less convinced that this commentary was removed as part of some conspiracy to paint the surveillance operatives in a more favourable light. In my judgment, this is supposition without foundation. There are elements of the Claimant’s Solicitor’s witness evidence, and indeed Ms Ashworth’s submissions, that are a little overstated and there appears to be some confirmation bias on their part in that every little perceived issue with the surveillance evidence is seen through the lens of conspiracy.

Mr Mills states that case handlers are provided training and guidance by TSG regarding their role as it is not an easy job. They are required to work through the footage and edit it into a seamless and chronological video of the subject during the period in question, ensuring that no footage of the subject is missed and trying to avoid including footage of third parties wherever possible.This can be made more complicated if two surveillance operatives are recording the subject at the same time. The case handler will be required to watch both sets of footage to confirm they are of exactly the same event and then decide which one to use as TSG guidance given to them is not to include both. If there are two recordings from the same time, the case handler uses their experience, training and guidance to decide which one to use. To assist them, the guidance given to the handlers is that no footage of a subject is to be omitted from the edited video.

The process of editing the surveillance in this case has been flawed. The Defendant accepts that there have been errors but, in my view, the errors are fundamental and repeated. TSG employees have provided witness statements to the Court, endorsed by statements of truth, that are manifestly untrue; this is clearly of great concern to the Court. Alarmingly, the witness statements provided by TSG management, particularly Mr Wittering, as part of this application appear to be somewhat dismissive of the severity of the failings and the fact that false statements have been put before the Court. At the very least, Ms Johal and Ms Begum negligently failed to include patently relevant material of the Claimant within the edited footage that they prepared and then provided witness statements to the Court stating that no footage of the Claimant had been excluded from the footage when it had.

Ms Reynolds attempted, without evidence in support, to reassure the Court that disciplinary action had been taken against Ms Begum, seemingly in response to Ms Ashworth’s submission as to the lack of TSG taking the above breaches seriously. I am surprised that there was no attempt to put evidence as to this issue before the Court given the repeated breaches of what are said to be TSG policies and procedures.

Taking everything together, I reject the contention that the failures on the part of TSG were part of a deliberate and dishonest attempt to provide a misleading picture of the Claimant’s (dis)abilities. I reach that conclusion for the following reasons:

I was assured by the Defendant’s counsel that all unedited footage has now been served on the Claimant. For the avoidance of doubt, I make it clear that the Court expects and orders that every single second of unedited surveillance footage ever taken by, or on behalf of, the Defendant in this case must be served upon the Claimant forthwith, and in any event within seven days of the handing down of this judgment. I will hear submissions as to whether a direction should be made for a further witness statement, endorsed with a statement of truth, to be provided from a senior manager from TSG to confirm that all surveillance ever taken in this case has been disclosed to, and served upon, the Claimant.