Peck -v- The United Kingdom; ECHR 28 Jan 2003

References: Times 03-Feb-03, 44647/98, (2003) 36 EHRR 41, [2003] ECHR 44, [2003] 36 EHRR 719, [2011] ECHR 1661
Links: Bailii, Bailii, Bailii
The claimant had been filmed by CCTV. He had, after attempting suicide, left home with a knife, been arrested by the police and disarmed, but then sent home without charge. The CCTV film was used on several occasions to advertise the effectiveness of the CCTV system, of the police and otherwise. Only in later versions was his identity protected.
Held: The disclosure infringed his rights of privacy: ‘Private life is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. The court has already held that elements such as gender identification, name, sexual orientation and sexual life are important elements of the personal sphere protected by Art. 8. The Article also protects a right to identity and personal development, and the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and it may include activities of a professional or business nature. There is, therefore, a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of ‘private life’.’ The distribution of the footage without appropriate conditions to protect his privacy, infringed article 8. The distribution generated far more publicity than would have arisen otherwise, and was a serious breach. There were no relevant or sufficient reasons for the publicity. The English legal system had not afforded him a remedy, infringing also his article 13 rights.
Statutes: European Convention on Human Rights 8 13
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Wainwright and another -v- Home Office HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 53, Bailii, Times 20-Oct-03, [2003] 3 WLR 1137, 2004] 2 AC 406)
    The claimant and her son sought to visit her other son in Leeds Prison. He was suspected of involvement in drugs, and therefore she was subjected to strip searches. There was no statutory support for the search. The son’s penis had been touched . .
  • Cited – Campbell -v- Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL (Bailii, [2004] UKHL 22, Times 10-May-04, House of Lords, [2004] 2 WLR 1232, [2004] 2 AC 457, [2004] UKHRR 648, [2004] EMLR 15, 16 BHRC 500, [2004] HRLR 24, [2004] 2 All ER 995)
    The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
  • Cited – Douglas and others -v- Hello! Ltd and others (No 3) CA (Bailii, [2005] EWCA Civ 595, Times 24-May-05, [2005] 4 All ER 128, [2005] 3 WLR 881, [2006] QB 125)
    The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. The claimants had retained joint . .
  • Cited – Countryside Alliance and others -v- HM Attorney General and others Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1677 (Admin), Times 03-Aug-05, [2006] EuLR 178)
    The various claimants sought to challenge the 2004 Act by way of judicial review on the grounds that it was ‘a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights to choose how they conduct their lives, and with market . .
  • Cited – Energy Financing Team Ltd and others -v- The Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Bow Street Magistrates Court Admn (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1626 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 1316)
    The claimants sought to set aside warrants and executions under them to provide assistance to a foreign court investigating alleged unlawful assistance to companies in Bosnia Herzegovina.
    Held: The issue of such a warrant was a serious step. . .
  • Cited – British Broadcasting Company -v- Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council and X and Y FD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 2862 (Fam), [2007] 1 FLR 101, [2006] EMLR 117)
    Application was made by the claimant for orders discharging an order made in 1991 to protect the identity of children and social workers embroiled in allegations of satanic sex abuse. The defendant opposed disclosure of the names of two social . .
  • Cited – McKennitt and others -v- Ash and Another QBD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 3003 (QB), [2006] EMLR 10)
    The claimant sought to restrain publication by the defendant of a book recounting very personal events in her life. She claimed privacy and a right of confidence. The defendant argued that there was a public interest in the disclosures.
    Held: . .
  • Cited – Murray -v- Express Newspapers Plc and Another ChD (Bailii, [2007] EWHC 1908 (Ch), Times 04-Oct-07, [2008] 1 WLR 2846)
    The claimant, now aged four and the son of a famous author, was photographed by use of a long lens, but in a public street. He now sought removal of the photograph from the defendant’s catalogue, and damages for breach of confidence.
    Held: The . .
  • Cited – Murray -v- Big Pictures (UK) Ltd; Murray -v- Express Newspapers CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 446, [2008] 3 WLR 1360, [2008] HRLR 33, [2008] UKHRR 736, [2008] 2 FLR 599, [2008] 3 FCR 661, [2008] ECDR 12, [2008] EMLR 1, [2008] Fam Law 732, [2009] Ch 481)
    The claimant, a famous writer, complained on behalf of her infant son that he had been photographed in a public street with her, and that the photograph had later been published in a national newspaper. She appealed an order striking out her claim . .
  • Cited – Mosley -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd QBD (Bailii, [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB), [2008] EMLR 20)
    The defendant published a film showing the claimant involved in sex acts with prostitutes. It characterised them as ‘Nazi’ style. He was the son of a fascist leader, and a chairman of an international sporting body. He denied any nazi element, and . .
  • Cited – Marper -v- United Kingdom; S -v- United Kingdom ECHR (30562/04, Bailii, [2008] ECHR 1581, Times, (2008) 158 NLJ 1755, (2009) 48 EHRR 50, 25 BHRC 557, [2009] Crim LR 355)
    (Grand Chamber hearing) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion, samples of their DNA had been taken, but despite being released without charge, the samples had retained on the Police database.
    Held: (Unanimous) The . .

Leave a Reply