"They may have been trespassing, but she probably implied consent because she thought they were a police crew." As the public thirst for real-life police action continues to spawn fly-on-the-wall footage from ambulance- chasing film crews, closed circuit TV and police cameras, Liberty is concerned at an increasing number of complaints from people who have had similar experiences to Yvonne's. How did they have the right to film me at my own home and then use it against my will?"Philip Leach, the legal adviser at the civil liberties pressure group Liberty, says the camera crew were perfectly within their rights. When she rang 999, a camera crew came too. Yvonne, a freelance editor from west London, says the LWT cameraman, who she initially thought was a policeman videotaping her evidence, failed to identify himself to her and the police later promised her the footage would end up on the cutting room floor.She says she didn't think anything more of it, but when she went to get new keys cut for her flat three weeks later the key-cutter instantly recognised her from the television "Sorry to hear about your break-in," he said. She knows this because she has played the scene and the minutes leading up to it - when a large man held a knife to her throat and then moved it downwards to cut her handbag from her arm - over and over in her mind since the attack. Other people, friends and strangers, also know she was in shock because they saw her white face and the police breaking into her flat, SAS-style, on prime time television. Naryle Shields, the son of Dawn Shields who was strangled and dumped on remote moorland near Sheffield, twice had an application for compensation rejected because Dawn was a prostitute..

When the police arrived after Yvonne had been mugged at knifepoint, she was in shock. The receipt of benefits also extinguishes a bereavement award."A CICB spokesman said a number of factors were taken into account when claims were dealt with.The case is not the first controversial decision. If he had died in a road traffic accidents we would be talking about a considerable amount."In a letter to Mrs Jones, the CICB says: "There is no loss of dependency, in view of the continuation of the business. I think that is a terrible decision."Her lawyer, Matthew Raggett, said: "We are appealing and it is my personal view that this kind of decision is a nonsense, crazy.