When Security Cameras Invade Your Right to Privacy : Privacy Rights vs Security Concerns

A recent court case in Cape Town dealt with a very modern problem: security cameras that look right into a neighbour's property.

The court ruled that your right to privacy—which is protected by South Africa's Constitution—does not just apply to the inside of your home. It also covers your outdoor living spaces, like your backyard, pool, and patio. Even though it's understandable that people worry about crime, that worry does not give them the right to constantly spy on their neighbours.

What Was the Fight About?

The case, called Phillips and Varkel v Bradbury, involved Mr. Bradbury and his next-door neighbours in a wealthy Cape Town suburb. The neighbours had a history of litigation, and things escalated when Mr. Bradbury noticed their security cameras were clearly pointed right at his place.

When the neighbours refused to move the cameras, Mr. Bradbury took them to court, saying the cameras were an invasion of his privacy.

The Court's Decision

First, a lower court told the neighbours they had to remove and reposition the cameras so they could not see into Mr. Bradbury's home. The neighbours decided to appeal that ruling.

The higher court had to decide: Did the neighbours' attempt to be more secure justify taking away Mr. Bradbury's right to privacy?

The court looked at the evidence, including pictures the neighbours themselves provided, which showed the cameras were aimed at Mr. Bradbury's:

• Courtyard
• Swimming pool
• Outdoor entertainment area
• Potentially even a bedroom

The court stressed that the right to privacy means having a "domain of intimacy and autonomy"—in other words, the right to enjoy your personal space free from others watching you.

It decided that the neighbours' 24-hour surveillance went way beyond what was necessary for their own safety. While protecting your home is important, the court stated that security concerns do not give you a free pass to constantly investigate someone else's private life.

Ultimately, the judges agreed that this constant, systematic watching was an unreasonable invasion of privacy and was essentially a legal nuisance. They also pointed out that the neighbours could have used less intrusive options, like electric fencing or motion detectors, instead of constant video recording.

Why This Matters for Homeowners

This judgment sends a clear message to property owners in South Africa:

You have the right to protect your home, but you must balance that with your neighbours' constitutional right to be left alone. Having the best intentions for security does not excuse you from unreasonably spying on someone else's private life.

If you have any questions about how this ruling might apply to a specific situation, please contact your litigation lawyer so they can help you enforce your rights – or strategically assess and mitigate potential harm.