The plaintiff in civil proceedings had arranged with the police that, if (as happened) the police obtained a search warrant and the claimant obtained an Anton Piller order, they should be executed simultaneously. The court had been informed of the police interest and was naturally concerned whether the privilege against self-incrimination might be infringed, but was satisfied that the claimant’s undertakings in the order would deal with that matter satisfactorily.
Held: The order, as made, did not infringe the defendant’s Article 8 rights. The court criticised the simultaneously execution of the warrants which might obscure the defendant’s right refuse entry to the claimant’s solicitor, but did not suggest that the claimant had been wrong to involve the police in the first place or that the defendant was in any way prejudiced by the fact that the police had been informed of potential criminal activity in the course of the claimant’s attempts to protect his intellectual property rights.
10461/83, [1989] ECHR 4, (1990) 12 EHRR 1
Worldlii, Bailii
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – C Plc v P and Attorney General Intervening CA 22-May-2007
The respondent had been subject to a civil search, which revealed the existence of obscene images of children on his computer. He appealed against refusal of an order that the evidence should not be passed to the police as evidence. He said that the . .
Cited – Tchenguiz and Others v Imerman CA 29-Jul-2010
Anticipating a refusal by H to disclose assets in ancillary relief proceedings, W’s brothers wrongfully accessed H’s computers to gather information. The court was asked whether the rule in Hildebrand remained correct. W appealed against an order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 August 2021; Ref: scu.165037