CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 septembre 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 45 August-September 2002 Perry v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 63737/00 Decision 26.9.2002 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Admission as evidence in criminal proceedings of video footage taken without accused’s knowledge or consent: inadmissible Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Transfer of prisoner to police station in order to film him on video, without his knowledge or consent, for identification purposes: inadmissible Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Video recording of suspect at police station made without his knowledge or consent: admissible The applicant was charged with a series of armed robberies. Several attempts were made by police to organise an identification parade, but the applicant failed to attend each time. Finally, the police decided to film him covertly when he was brought from prison (where he was on remand in relation to another matter) to the police station. He was filmed in a public area of the station. Subsequently, eleven volunteers imitated the actions of the applicant as recorded on video. Witnesses to the robberies were shown the twelve clips. Two witnesses positively identified the applicant. Neither the applicant nor his solicitor was aware of the existence or use of the tape, nor did they see it before it was used. At the trial, counsel for the defence sought to have the video excluded as evidence. The judge admitted the video as evidence on the basis that, while the police had infringed the official guidelines in a number of respects, the manner in which it was used was not unfair. In his summing-up to the jury, the judge clearly explained the special need for caution regarding identification evidence. He told them to ask themselves whether the video evidence was fair and informed them of the applicant’s complaints about the honesty and fairness of his treatment and the failure of the police to follow the guidelines. He also outlined to them the other evidence against the applicant. The jury found the applicant guilty and he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to admit the video evidence and had correctly directed the jury. Inadmissible under Article 5 § 1: The applicant was already detained on remand on the day he was brought to the police station. His presence at the police station came within Article   5 § 1 (c), in view of the offences under investigation and the making of the video in breach of official guidelines did not render his detention at the police station unlawful under domestic law or arbitrary for the purpose of Article 5 § 1: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The applicant had been given sufficient possibilities to test the video evidence at all stages. The use of evidence obtained without a proper legal basis or through unlawful means will not generally contravene Article 6 § 1 as long as proper procedural safeguards are in place and the source of the material is not tainted: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes