King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

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

Fecha: 09-Oct-2025

Is the surveillance evidence of probative value?

Is the surveillance evidence of probative value?

20.

The Claimant does not dispute that it is her depicted in the footage.

21.

At the outset of the hearing, I sought to ascertain from Ms Ashworth whether, despite the many complaints the Claimant makes about the surveillance evidence, she accepts that the evidence has probative value in this case. I was not provided with a clear answer, in part because the Claimant is so dismayed at the perceived failings on the part of the Defendant’s agents, she does not believe that the evidence creates a fair picture and thus cannot be probative.

22.

The Defendant, through Ms Reynolds’ skeleton argument, points to specific contentions that have been made by the Claimant as to her level of functioning, which are set out below alongside the Defendant’s interpretation of what the surveillance evidence shows. Further contentions are made within the Defendant’s second draft Amended Defence (“the second AD”), to which I will return later. I stress that the Court was not provided with several of the documents referred to below and thus I have been unable to cross-reference all of the assertions made by Ms Reynolds. Ms Ashworth did not agree with at least some of the assertions made by Ms Reynolds and also emphasised that Ms Reynolds had picked very specific points from a wealth of evidence of the symptoms and limitations the Claimant has reported and thus those points need to be read in the context of the Claimant’s reporting as a whole, particularly where her functioning had changed over time. The following assertions were made by Ms Reynolds on behalf of the Defendant, but in setting them out below, the Court makes no finding one way or the other as to whether they are correct:

The Claimant has reported difficulties with the function of her thumbs such that she had difficulty using a mobile phone [to Professor Warwick] and uses a hands-free phone [to Dr Neal and the Police Medical Appeal Board]. In contrast, the Defendant asserts, she is seen on surveillance using her mobile phone in her hand, at times whilst doing something else with her other hand, including pushing a trolley, cleaning the rear light of her car and lifting a rollator into and out of the car.

ii)

The Claimant reported to the Police Medical Appeal Board that she could not lift a kettle and stated in her witness statement that it was painful to lift a kettle. In contrast, the Defendant asserts, she is seen on the surveillance lifting and/or carrying items, including lifting bags of compost onto a trolley, carrying a Henry hoover, unloading bags from the boot of her car, lifting a mobility scooter in and out of her car and lifting a rollator in and out of her car.

iii)

The Claimant has stated she would ask someone else to lift her mobility scooter into and out of the car. In contrast, the Defendant asserts, the surveillance shows her lifting her mobility scooter and a rollator into the car. Ms Ashworth pointed out that the Claimant said in her witness statement that she “struggled” to lift her mobility scooter, not that she could not do it.

iv)

The Claimant has reported restricted right shoulder movement [to Professor Povlsen] and pain in her right shoulder on lifting her arm above her head [to Dr Edwards and Professor Edwards]. In contrast, the Defendant asserts that she can be seen on surveillance reaching up with her right arm above shoulder height whilst shopping and reaching up to close the car boot.

The Claimant has reported that her unaided walking distance is limited [Dr Neal: 20 yards before needing to sit and rest; Ms Bear: 20 yards on a good day; Dr Edwards: 30 to 40m on her best day then would stop and go again; DWP: 50 yards before she has to stop for a few minutes; Police Medical Appeal Board: 50m; Witness statement: 50m]. In contrast, the Defendant asserts, she is seen walking around B&Q for distances greater than this.

vi)

The Claimant reported to the DWP on 25 May 2023 that she does not use the car, and her husband did all the driving now. She reported to Professor Quick on 9 May 2023 that she was not able to drive due to pain in her hands. In contrast the surveillance shows her using her car in April 2023.

23.

The Claimant was unable to point to any examples where it could be said that there is any evidence that the video footage itself has been tampered with to show something that did not in reality happen. Whilst Ms Ashworth did not feel able to make a concession that the Claimant accepts that everything depicted in the footage indeed happened, there was no positive averment to the contrary.

24.

There can be no real dispute in this case that the surveillance evidence is of probative value as to the Claimant’s level of functioning and disability and thus to central disputed issues in the case. The Claimant’s claim is based upon her having suffered significant injuries that continue to have a disabling effect on her. As set out above, on the face of it, the surveillance evidence calls for an explanation by the Claimant. Like the situation in Rall, it is the contention of the Defendant that the actions portrayed exhibit an overall level and freedom of activity which is inconsistent with the overall picture presented in the medical reports, medical records and the witness statement of Claimant. Subject to the limitations that generally apply to surveillance evidence, the trial judge would be assisted by seeing such footage.