Khan 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 not regulate sufficiently the use of covert listening devices to protect the individual’s rights under the Convention to respect for private and family life, and nor did the law give any effective remedy for such intrusion. The court in admitting such evidence had taken proper account of the unfairness and lack of regulation. The UK courts had not considered the admission of the evidence to be unfair. The complaint under article 8 was upheld, that under article 6 was rejected.


Times 23-May-2000, 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V, [2000] ECHR 194, (2000) 31 EHRR 1016, [2000] ECHR 195, (2001) 31 EHRR 45


Worldlii, Bailii


Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, European Convention on Human Rights 6 8.1


Appeal fromRegina v Khan (Sultan) HL 2-Jul-1996
The police had obtained the evidence against the defendant by fixing a covert listening device at an apartment visited by the defendant, and by recording his conversations there. The defendant appealed, saying that the court should have regard to . .

Cited by:

CitedHewitson 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 . .
MentionedWainwright and another v Home Office HL 16-Oct-2003
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 . .
CitedWood v United Kingdom ECHR 16-Nov-2004
Police officers had placed suspects in a cell together and covertly recorded their conversation in order to obtain evidence against them. The events took place in 1999.
Held: The recording was outside any legal system of control and interefred . .
CitedA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
CitedC 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 . .
CitedMcE, Re; McE v Prison Service of Northern Ireland and Another HL 11-Mar-2009
Complaint was made that the prisoner’s privileged conversations with his solicitors had been intercepted by the police.
Held: The Act made explicit provisions allowing such interception and set out the appropriate safeguards. The interceptions . .
CitedRegina v P and others HL 19-Dec-2000
Where communications had been intercepted in a foreign country, and the manner of such interceptions had been lawful in that country, the evidence produced was admissible in evidence in a trial in England. An admission of such evidence was not an . .
CitedKinloch 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.

Human Rights, Criminal Evidence

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.165868

Comments are closed.