Lynn Richmond From BTO Solicitors Gives Incorrect Legal Advice About “Filming In Public” Regarding Addy Agame

Lynn Richmond and BTO Solicitors gave an inaccurate synopsis on filming in a public place on pubic property in regards to dating coach Adnan Ahmed a.k.a Addy Agame. Richmond titled her article “Filming Without Consent,” however the content of the blog post was mostly about options of civil action and not criminal implications.

Lynn stated; “the arrest of, and charges brought against Addy Agame highlight dangers of secret filming of individuals.” This is ill-informed legal advice as Addy faced no charges of any kind in regards to “secret filming of individuals.” Richmond continued; “while criminal charges were brought against Mr Ahmed in respect of covertly filming individuals without their knowledge or consent… must consider legal implications.” Once again Lynn is giving incorrect legal advice here as no criminal charges were brought against Addy “in respect of covert filming.” Miss Richmond seems to have got caught up in the online trolling / media hype and hastily made an inaccurate legal analysis to capitalise on some publicity for BTO solicitors. Additionally, it is not illegal to film in public places (i.e. city centre streets) without an individual’s knowledge / consent; the media do so all the time on a daily basis, as do members of the public for social media apps.

At most if an individual takes exception to being filmed in a public place in this context, then they can take civil legal action and sue the person who filmed them, this would have to be funded by the individual taking civil action. No criminal implications would be involved. Filming in a public place (with or without knowledge/ consent) is different from crimes involving filming such as revenge porn or up skirting/ voyuerism (which involves secret filming of nudity or of a sexual nature). Hence why Addy faced NO criminal charges for filming!

The BTO solicitors blog then contradicts its initial point by stating; “the law does not operate as to prevent filming in public places.” The rest of Lynn Richmond’s lengthy article goes onto contradict the claim of Mr Ahmed facing charges for “filming in public” further (he didn’t face any charges for this). Although the general information provided about civil action being an option and legislation is valid, the context the article was promoted does not back-up the original false claims involving Mr Ahmed.