Perry v The United Kingdom: ECHR 17 Jul 2003

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
The claimant had been arrested, then released to attend an identification parade. Several attempts failed, then with senior officer’s consent he was video taped on his next visit to the police station. The tape was used to identify him, and led to his conviction. The use was outside the Codes of Practice.
Held: The covert surveillance was an infringement of his human rights. It was not in accordance with law, and there had been no expectation of being videoed in this way.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
63737/00, Times 26-Aug-2003, [2003] ECHR 375, (2004) 39 EHRR 3
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8.2
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedWood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis Admn 22-May-2008
The claimant challenged the right of police officers to take his photograph as he attended an annual general meeting of Reed Elsevier Plc. He was a campaigner against the arms trade, but had always acted lawfully. The company noted the purchase of . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 February 2021; Ref: scu.185149