译者 |巩海璐 华东政法大学硕士
一审 | 戚若音 UCB LL.M.
二审 | 吴胤禹 NYU LL.M.
编辑 | 仲飞宇 西安外国语大学本科
         于   杰 上海对外经贸大学本科
责编 | 李   薇 浙江工商大学本科
R. v. Jarvis
加拿大贾维斯案件：
如何去定义公共场所下的隐私权？
一、案情概述
Mr. Ryan Jarvis, the accused, was a high school teacher, used a camera concealed in a pen to record videos of female students, involved in ordinary school activities in common areas such as classrooms and hallways. The students were unaware that they were being recorded. Most videos captured faces and upper bodies of female students, focusing on their chests. The accused was charged under section 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, with voyeurism. The offence required three ingredients - (i) surreptitious observation or recording of persons, (ii) for a sexual purpose, (iii) in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.
被告瑞恩·贾维斯（Ryan Jarvis）是一名高中老师，他通过使用隐藏在笔中的针孔摄像头拍摄女高中生在教室和走廊等公共区域参与日常学校活动的视频，而这些学生并不知道她们已被拍摄。大多数的视频拍摄了女高中生的面部和上半身，并将重点放在她们的胸部。被告被控违反了《刑法典》第162(1)(c)条，所犯罪名为偷窥罪。该罪行有三个犯罪要素：（1）秘密观察他人或秘密给他人录像（音）；（2）出于性目的；（iii）在被录像（音）对象（可）产生“合理隐私期待”1的情形下。
The trial court acquitted the accused, noting that whilst the students recorded had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the recordings were not for a sexual purpose. The Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s finding but upheld the acquittal. It observed that the recordings were for a sexual purpose, however, the students were not in circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.
初审法院裁定被告无罪，并指出虽然被摄学生当时（可）产生“合理隐私期待”，但录像并非出于性目的。之后，安大略省上诉法院推翻了初审法院的裁决，但仍维持了无罪释放裁定。上诉法院指出，尽管这些录像是出于性目的，但学生们所处情况并未引起“合理隐私期待”。
The Crown appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
加拿大政府针对上诉法院的裁决向加拿大最高法院提起上诉。
（图片来源于网络）
二、争议焦点
Whether the students who were recorded in school were in circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy within the purview of Section 162(1) of the Criminal Code?
在学校被拍摄的学生所处情形是否引起了属于《刑法典》第162(1)条项下的“合理隐私期待”？
三、法院判决及主要论据
The Court, in a 6-3 opinion, held that given the context in which the impugned recording took place, the students were in circumstances in which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The accused’s recording breached this expectation. It upheld the Court of Appeal’s finding and held that the element of ‘sexual purpose’ of recording had been satisfied. Accordingly, the Court convicted the accused or voyeurism under section 162 of the Criminal Code.
最高法院以6比3的庭审意见判定，鉴于被控拍摄（或录影）所在场所的背景，在该情形下学生们存在着“合理隐私期待”。被告所摄视频违反了这一预期。本院维持了上诉法院的相关认定，并判决所摄视频符合“性目的”这一要素。据此，法院根据《刑法典》第162条判定被告犯有偷窥罪。
（图片来源于网络）
The Court noted that interpreting circumstances in which a reasonable expectation of privacy arises was a normative and contextual enquiry. It laid down a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in making this enquiry. The relevance of these factors would differ from case-to-case. These factors included:
本院指出，对（可）引起“合理隐私期待”的情形进行解释是一项规范性和情境性的调查。本院列出了进行此项调查时所需要考虑要素的不穷尽清单。这些要素的相关性因具体情况而异。这些要素包括：
i) the location of the person observed or recorded;
1）他人被观察或被录像（音）的地点；
ii) if the impugned conduct was an observation or a recording (the latter was held to be a graver breach of expectations of privacy);
2）如果被控行为是观察还是录音（像）（后者曾被认定是对他人隐私期待更为严重的违反）；
iii) the manner in which the observation or recording was done;
3）观察或录音（像）的方式；
iv) the content of the observation or recording;
4）观察或录音（像）的具体内容；
v) the purpose of the observation or recording;
5）观察或录音（像）的目的；
vi) knowledge or consent of the person observed or recorded;
6）被观察或对被录音（像）人员知情或同意；
vii) any regulations or policies governing the impugned observation or recording;
7）任一规制被控观察或录像（音）行为的法规或政策；
viii) the relationship between the accused and the persons observed or recorded;
8）被告和被观察或被录像（音）人员之间的关系；
ix) the personal attributes of the person observed or recorded.
9）被观察或被录像（音）人员的个人特征。
（图片来源于网络）
Relying on the legislative history and the phrasing of section 162, the Court held that privacy was not dependent solely on the person’s location. It further noted that the object behind section 162 was to protect an individual’s privacy and sexual integrity from misuse by evolving technologies. Consequently, some degree of expectation of privacy is retained even in public and semi-public places. It further held that mere risk of observation or recording did not negate reasonable expectations against targeted observation or recording.
根据第162条的立法历史和文本规定，本院认为隐私不仅仅取决于个人所处的场所。本院还指出，设置第162条规定的目的在于保护个人隐私和性完整性，使其免于被日新月异的技术所滥用。因此，即使是在公共场所和半公共场所中，也仍保留了一定程度的隐私期待。本院还认为，仅仅存在被观察或对被录像（音）的风险，这并不能否定反对针对性观察或录像（音）的合理期待。
In this case, the Court noted that the impugned conduct was of recording the students and not the mere observation. The students were unaware of this due to the use of a hidden pen camera. It also noted the existence of school policies forbidding such conduct, the relationship of trust between the students and the accused, the age of students being recorded, and the sexual purpose of the recording. The Court concluded that the students’ reasonable expectations of privacy had been breached. The fact that the recording was conducted in common spaces of the school did not negate the privacy expectations.
在本案中，本院指出，受到争议的行为是对女学生进行录像，而不仅仅是观察她们。由于使用了隐藏在笔中的针孔摄像头，这些学生并没有意识到上述行为。本院还提及了禁止此类行为的学校政策、学生与被告之间的信任关系、被录像学生的年龄以及录像的性目的。本院判定，学生的“合理隐私期待”被侵犯了。在学校公共空间进行录像的这一事实并没有否定学生隐私期待的存在。
The minority opinion differed with the majority in the latter’s reliance on the jurisprudence of section 8 of the Charter, which protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure. It noted that the two provisions were conceptually different. Section 8 pertained to the power imbalance in the state-individual relationship, which was not present in section 162 as it concerned the relationship between two individuals. Consequently, it held that a case of voyeurism would not give rise to offences in relation to the reasonable expectation of privacy.2
少数意见与多数意见的分歧在于，后者以《宪章》第8条为法理依据。该条保护个人免遭无理搜查和扣押。少数意见指出，这两项规定在概念上是不同的。《宪章》第8条涉及的是国家与个人关系中的权力失衡，这在《刑法典》第162条中并未出现，因为第162条涉及的是两个人之间的关系。因此，少数意见认为，偷窥案件不会引起关乎“合理隐私期待”的犯罪。
（图片来源于网络）
四、案件评析
The notion of maintaining one’s privacy in traditionally public settings has the potential to open new doors in privacy law. As legal questions surrounding privacy continue to arise, a further question that will be asked is how public settings are going to be defined. For example, digital privacy is a contentious issue, and using the majority’s reasoning, it could be argued that people still have a right to their digital privacy even if that information is publicly available. There may be situations where a reasonable expectation of privacy can arise if such information is gained in a manner that fulfills the criteria set out in the multi-factored approach.
在传统公共场所维护个人隐私这一概念可能会为隐私法打开新的大门。随着隐私相关法律问题的不断涌现，人们将会提出“如何定义公共环境”这个问题。例如，数字隐私是一个备受争议的问题，依照最高院多数意见的说理，人们可以主张：即使该信息是公开的，人们仍然对其享有数字隐私权。因为如果以多因素方法中所规定标准的方式获取此类信息，则仍可能会出现（可）产生“合理隐私期待”的情形。
This case is another example of statutory interpretation in the context of interplay between constitutional and statutory provisions. Some have argued that this matter should not have reached the SCC in order to conclude that the students maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy from being surreptitiously recorded by their own teacher. On the other hand, the Court’s divergent opinions on how to assess a reasonable expectation of privacy opens the door for future jurisprudence on using Charter litigation to understand the scope of Criminal Code offences.
本案是《宪法》与法律规定相互作用背景下，法院进行法律解释的又一实例。一些人认为，此案不应被提交至加拿大最高法院（the Supreme Court of Canada, SCC），以得出学生对隐私不被老师秘密录像存在合理期待这一结论。另一方面，最高法院对于如何评估“合理隐私期待”存在不同意见，为今后利用《宪章》进行诉讼来理解《刑法典》中规定的犯罪范畴打开了大门。
脚注
Footnotes
1 译者注：“In general, this term is used to describe how much privacy an individual can expect in a certain situation. ”
2 译者注：The purpose of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to prevent unjustified searches by the state before they happen (Hunter v Southam, [1984] 2 SCR 145). Section 8 aims to protect underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy (R v Plant, [1993] 3 SCR 281). Broadly speaking, a search or a seizure will violate section 8 if it interferes with an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. 按照少数派的说理，section 8: unreasonable search and seizure中关乎REP的理论不适用，那么就不能用REP来解释。
原文链接：https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/r-vs-jarvis#:~:text=Case%20Brief,camera%20hidden%20in%20a%20pen.
继续阅读
阅读原文