The defendants were to stand trial for drugs offences, but raised a devoltion issue as to the use of police surveillance products gathered under the 2000 Act. They said that the authorisation to carry out the surveillance had been granted on insufficient detail as required under the 2000 Act, infringing their right to a fair trial.
Held: The submission was rejected. Lord Macfadyen said: ‘What took place in Albion Street at the relevant time was that a plastic bag was handed by the first appellant to the second appellant. That was done in a public place. The event was there to be observed by anyone who happened to be in the vicinity, whatever the reason for their presence might be. It was in fact observed by police officers. They had reason to suspect that criminal activity was taking place. They therefore detained the appellants. On further investigation it was found that the bag contained controlled drugs. That sequence of events did not involve the obtaining of private information about the second appellant, in the sense mentioned in section 1(9) or in any broader sense. Nor did it involve any lack of respect for the second appellant’s private life. What was done did not, in our opinion, amount to an infringement of the second appellant’s rights under article 8.’
Judges:
Lord Justice General And Lord Osborne And Lord Macfadyen
Citations:
[2004] ScotHC 53
Links:
Statutes:
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4(3)(b), Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Cited by:
Cited – Kinloch v Her Majesty’s Advocate SC 19-Dec-2012
The appellant said that the police officers had acted unlawfully when collecting the evidence used against him, in that the information used to support the request for permission to undertake clandestine surveillance had been insufficiently . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Human Rights
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219570