Liberty complained that the interception of their communications under the 1985 Act between 1990 and 1997 had infringed their article 8 rights, since the Act was insufficiently clear.
Held: The infringements were established. The mere existence of legislation which allowed communications to be monitored secretly had entailed a surveillance threat for all those to whom the legislation might be applied. There had been an interference with their rights as guaranteed by article 8. The warrants issued were in the broadest of terms, and the Home Secretary had failed to safeguard against abuse of power, and it had not set out in a form accessible to the public any indication of the procedure to be followed for examining, sharing, storing and destroying intercepted material.
L Garlicki, President and Judges Sir Nicholas Bratza, L. Mijovic, D. Thor Bjorgvinsson, J. Sikuta, P. Hirvela and M. Poalelungi
58243/00, [2008] ECHR 568, Times 11-Jul-2008, [2011] ECHR 1273
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Interception of Communications Act 1985
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Marper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
Cited – Gallagher for Judicial Review (NI) SC 30-Jan-2019
Disclosure of older minor offences to employers 48 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police
Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.270679
