Hewitson v The United Kingdom: ECHR 27 May 2003

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The applicant had been under investigation by the police. Whilst under arrest, his garage was fitted with a secret recording device, and the evidence gathered was later used against him at his trial.
Held: The secret recording in a manner which was not subject to proper regulation was an infringement of the applicant’s right to private life. The Police Act was insufficient protection.
Mr M Pellonpaa, President, Sir Nicolas Bratza, Mrs E. Palm, Mrs V. Str Anick, Mr M. Fischbach, Mr J. Casadevall, Mr S. Pavlovschi
50015/99, Times 10-Jun-2003, [2003] ECHR 248
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8.1, Police Act 1997
Human Rights
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Hewitson, Bramich, Vincent CACD 24-Sep-1998
The defendants appealed their conviction after admission of evidence taken from secret tape recordings taken from a recording device hidden in the garage of one of the defendants.
Held: The evidence had been properly admitted. It was not . .
CitedKhan v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-May-2000
Evidence was acknowledged to have been obtained unlawfully and in breach of another article of the Convention. The police had installed covert listening devices on private property without the knowledge or consent of the owner. UK national law did . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.182523