.
The Minister of Police is liable for the damages suffered by a Klerksdorp SAPS data typist who is claiming R5 million for the trauma and suffering she had to endure when a cop unlawfully installed a surveillance camera in her home.
Anna Mtshelu stated in papers before the Pretoria High Court that Inspector Marius Mostert, who at the time worked with her at the police station in Klerksdorp, suspected her husband of being involved in criminal activity and forced her into having a secret camera installed in her lounge.
She said had eventually “broken down” after her husband was secretly filmed inside their home for two days, and she discussed the installation of the camera in her house with her colleagues.
Mtshelu said she was under the impression that she had no say in the matter, but was told that it had been installed unlawfully.
None of her superiors ordered had the installation of the camera, and Mostert, when he was confronted about it, claimed she asked for it to be installed in her home. The court ordered that the minister had to pay Mtshelu for any damages she suffered as a consequence of the secret camera.
The amount of damages due to her will be determined at a later stage. According to court papers, the device was installed on July 28, 2006, after he husband was arrested for allegedly being involved in a robbery.
He was in custody for a short time, but the court eventually cleared him of the charge owing to a lack of evidence at the time.
Mtshelu alleged that Mostert was aggressive when he told her that if she did not allow him to install the camera, she would be arrested.
She feared that her children might be left destitute, so she agreed to have the camera installed.
When she questioned her superiors two days later about the camera, only to learn it was unlawful, Mostert confronted her at work.
He “pointed a finger at me and aggressively howled at me and questioned me as to why I had informed his commander about the monitoring device at my house”, Mtshelu stated.
The device was apparently installed by one Isaac, who, according to court papers, was a police informant. Mtshelu said she was instructed on how and when to switch the camera on.
She said Mostert told her he would monitor her for the “whole weekend” anyway.
Mtshelu, after being subjected to the camera for two days, asked Mostert’s commander why he (the commander) had instructed Mostert to install the camera. It then emerged that none of police officers knew anything about it.
An investigation brought to light that the camera did not belong to the police, but in fact belonged to some mining company.
Mostert, soon after it came to light that the camera was installed in the house, apparently instructed Isaac to remove it.
But Mtshelu’s husband, who was home at the time when Isaac went in to dismantle the camera, refused him permission to do so, pending the outcome of the police investigation into the matter.
During the investigation, Mostert said Mtshelu asked him for help after her husband was arrested for robbery and asked him to install the camera. He admitted he did not follow procedure, claiming he ”wanted to protect her and he did not want to involve the police”.
Mtshelu had a breakdown following her ordeal and was booked off on sick leave. She said that when she returned to work, her colleagues “treated her with hostility and exclusion” and she feared Mostert would victimise her. She then had another breakdown and had to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital.
She said that what he had done had totally invaded her privacy and was contrary to the police code of conduct. It is not clear from court papers what steps were taken against Mostert, but he is no longer in the SAPS. – Pretoria News
Read More:
Wife’s trauma over home ‘spy’ camera