Donald Trump’s golf resort near Aberdeen is being sued for breach of privacy and damages by a rambler who was filmed without her consent on the course.

A lawyer acting for Rohan Beyts, a retired social worker and environmental activist, has accused Trump’s staff of breaching the Data Protection Act by taking mobile phone footage of her in April as she allegedly urinated behind a dune on the course.



Beyts’s lawyer, Mike Dailly, has accused Trump’s staff of illegally filming and retaining that footage, after the Guardian revealed last month that the resort had breached the UK’s strict laws on data protection and privacy.

Trump International Golf Course Scotland, which is wholly owned by the Republican presidential candidate, admitted it had failed to register with the information commissioner’s office, the UK’s data protection regulator. This was despite operating at least nine CCTV cameras at the resort and holding records on thousands of guests, 95 employees and a large number of contractors and suppliers.

The resort also breached official guidelines on using CCTV by failing to display prominent signs warning visitors and guests at the course and its 19-bedroom boutique hotel that they were being filmed.

In a statement, TIGCS said the failure to register with the commissioner was a clerical error, and it had submitted its registration on 10 August.



Under Scotland’s wide-ranging laws that uphold public access to open land, Beyts and a friend had used a public footpath across the Trump course to walk past the clubhouse to reach a thick band of sand dunes and beach bordering the course.

As they came back from their walk, the pair say there were challenged by resort staff and then photographed by a local newspaper photographer.

Three days later she was visited at home by two Police Scotland officers who formally charged her with public annoyance. A third officer in charge of the complaint told her that two members of Trump’s staff and a guest on the course had filmed her on their mobile phones as she ducked out of sight.

Beyts, 62, has been a longstanding critic of Trump’s development, and her prosecution raised fresh accusations from Trump’s critics that his staff were deliberately persecuting his opponents and closely monitored their movements on the resort.

Dailly, the principal solicitor at Govan Law Centre in Glasgow, said the resort’s admissions raised substantial doubts about the legality of its use and circulation of any video footage, whether taken by a CCTV camera or a smartphone.

“This is a straightforward claim for invasion of privacy, on the basis that the golf course has admitted that they weren’t registered with the ICO,” he said. “That means they weren’t in a position to be processing people’s data [lawfully] because they weren’t doing it under the auspices of the legislation.”

Dailly has written twice to TIGCS advising it that Betys is seeking £3,000 damages under the Data Protection Act for breach of privacy and for being “deeply distressed” by being filmed. He said Beyts would start court proceedings if the company rejected her damages demand.

TIGCS told the Guardian that the complaint was without foundation. “Ms Beyts has no claim against us,” a spokeswoman said. “CCTV footage had no part in the police investigation. Her prosecution was based on three eyewitness accounts.” The company did not answer further questions.

Trump’s Scottish spokeswoman, Sarah Malone, told the Sunday Herald in April that the complaint against Beyts was wholly justified. “This disgusting and shameful act took place in broad daylight in full view of our staff and guests by an individual who has been disruptive in the past,” she said.

On 24 May, Beyts received an official warning letter from local prosecutors under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act that put the charges on record for two years, without involving a court hearing, which she has since refused to accept. Her refusal means local prosecutors have six months to take further action.



Beyts said she was not pursuing the case for the money. A keen rambler and outdoors enthusiast, she said the experience in April had left her feeling vulnerable and insecure every time she went for a walk and needed to urinate outside. She now fears she could be filmed anywhere.

“It is absolutely not about the money: it’s about the principle, making sure that people can feel free to walk on a place where they previously they could walk, unmolested, to stop people feeling intimidated.”