Judgements and case law
Relevant judgments can be researched using proprietary legal systems. Where details are known transcripts may be accessed through an executive agency of the Department of Constitutional Affairs: http://www.courtservice.gov.uk .
The following cases may be of interest.
R v. Sutherland [2000] Nottingham Crown Court T20027203
The recording and handling of confidential material (legal privilege) obtained as a result of recording equipment deployed in the exercise area of two police stations.
Amman v. Switzerland [16/02/2000] European Court App. 27798/95
Security Service interception of ordinary business telephone call to A (because it emanated from Soviet Embassy). Subsequent creation of “security” dossier. Telephone calls to business premises can be construed as covered by the notions of “private life” and “correspondence”. This interception, and the storage of data, each amounted to infringement of Article 8 rights.
R v. Terry and Others (8/8/2001) H.H.Judge Broderick
Surveillance subject to a disputed authorisation under the Police Act 1997 held to contravene Article 8 , but product of the surveillance was not excluded from evidence (s.78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984).
Extensive analysis of, and commentary on, police authorising practice.
PG and JH v. United Kingdom (25/12/2001) European Court App. 44787/98
Covert recording of conversation in police cells for identification purposes held to be a violation of Article 8.
Guidance on meaning of “respect for private life”:
“a person’s reasonable expectations as to privacy may be a significant, though not necessarily conclusive factor”.
“Private life considerations may arise…. once any systematic or permanent record comes into existence of … material from the public domain.”
Peck v. United Kingdom [28/01/2003] European Court App. 44647/98
CCTV images of P in public place holding knife given widespread publicity in crime prevention campaign. In fact P was engaged in suicide attempt. Held: disclosure of relevant footage to media amounted to breach of Article 8. Discussion of the scope of “private life”.
Martin v. McGuinness [2/04/2003] [2003] ScotCS 96
Personal injury claim for damages. Surveillance of claimant and family by investigator.
Discussion of Article 8 infringement, and resulting effect upon admissibility of evidence.
XXX v. YYY [9/04/2003] [2003] UKEAT 0729_01_0904
Child J included in video of father’s sexual behaviour. Publication of video during court proceedings would “obviously” infringe J’s Article 8 rights.
Perry v. United Kingdom[17/07/2003] European Court App. 63737/00
Covert filming of suspect P (who had refused ID parade) in police custody suite held to infringe right to respect for private life.
Gilchrist & another v. HM Advocate [2004] ScotHC 53
Considers the argument that having an invalid authorisation for Directed Surveillance as part of a surveillance operation affects the validity of all other authorisations that have been obtained in the course of the investigation.
Martin v. United Kingdom [19/02/2004] European Court App. 63608/00
Alleged disorderly behaviour by M towards neighbour. Local Authority mounted covert surveillance of M. Claim of Article 8 infringement settled by agreement - M receiving £4000 damages.
Campbell v. MGN [6/05/2004] [2004] UKHL 22
Newspaper photographs of “celebrity”, in the particular circumstances was a breach of Article 8. Values underlying Articles 8 and 10 are not confined to disputes between individuals and public authorities.
Von Hannover v. Germany [24/06/2004] European Court App. 59320/00
Daughter of Prince Rainier of Monaco “hounded” by paparazzi. Held: breach of Article 8. Photographs infringed reasonable expectation of privacy.
McGowan v. Scottish Water [23/09/2004] [2004] UKEAT 0007_04_2309
Surveillance of employee suspected of false time-keeping. Held (in the circumstances) “necessary for prevention of crime”, “entirely reasonable”, and “not disproportionate”.
Grant v. R ( 4/5/2005 ) CA Case No. 2003/04573
Appeal allowed against a conviction for conspiracy to murder. The proceedings should have been stayed as an abuse of process. The decision was based on a finding that there had been deliberate covert surveillance of conversations between the accused and his solicitor, by means of a bug in the police station exercise yard. A process that had led to a purported RIPA authorisation of the surveillance demonstrated a disregard for the proper procedures demanded by RIPA.
R v. Button and Tannahill [2005] EWCA Crim 516 (4/3/2005 ) CA Case No: 2004 00204 D
Audio and video recording of defendants while in police custody. Audio recording had been RIPA authorised; video recording was not authorised. Video record admitted in evidence although common ground that it had been unauthorised and so obtained unlawfully (in breach of s.6 Human Rights Act 1998).
Argued on appeal that the trial Court was itself in breach of s.6 by admitting the evidence.
Held that the breach of article 8 related to the intrusion upon private life involved in the covert surveillance. So far as a trial Court is concerned: any such breach of article 8 is subsumed by the article 6 ( and P.A.C.E.) duty to ensure a fair trial. The trial judge had not acted unlawfully by admitting the evidence.
Abbott & Ors v R. [2005] EWCA Crim 2952 (30 November 2005)
Appeal against conviction on grounds (inter alia) that evidence of covert recordings of conversation between defendants while in police custody was wrongly admitted. Trial judge had held (after a voir dire) that the recording had been properly authorised under RIPA, despite some technical breaches of the appropriate procedure.
“it is plain” that breaches of the code and breaches of article 8 do not of themselves render the evidence inadmissible, but are factors which a judge will take into account when exercising his powers under section 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It was "obvious that the admission of this evidence would not adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings." The decision to admit the evidence upheld.
|
