It was conceded that there had been a breach of article 8 in the obtaining of covert video and audio recordings of the appellants’ incriminating conversations.
Held: If there was a breach by the police of article 8, it did not follow that the evidence thereby obtained was inadmissible. Any breach of article 8 in the obtaining of the evidence was due to acts of the police, not the Lord Advocate.
Lord Justice Clerk Gill said that the act that was relevant to section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 was the act of the Lord Advocate in leading the evidence.
Lord Johnston And Lord Justice Clerk And Lord Wheatley
 ScotHC 13, 2004 SCCR 193, 2004 JC 60
Police Act 1997, European Convention on Human Rights 6 8, Scotland Act 1998 57(2)
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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 January 2021; Ref: scu.193809