Connor v Hm Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 13 March 2002 |
| Date | 13 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | No 16 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Kingarth and Lord Carloway
Justiciary—Evidence—Admissibility—Surveillance by police—Observation of persons attending at home of accused—Whether breach of right to privacy—Human Rights Act 1998 (cap 42)—European Convention on Human Rights, art 8(1)
Justiciary—Human rights—Right to respect for private life—Surveillance by police—Observation of persons attending at home of accused—Whether breach of right to privacy—Human Rights Act—European Convention on Human Rights, art 8(1)
Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”.
The appellant was charged with being concerned in the supplying of a class A drug. In the course of the trial, objection was taken by way of devolution minute to the admissibility of evidence to be led by the Crown from a police officer. The police, acting upon information received, had carried out surveillance on the common close at the block of flats where the appellant lived. The operation lasted seven and a half hours. During the time a number of people had attended at and left the common close. Two of them had been stopped and searched and controlled drugs were found on one of them. Thereafter a search warrant for the appellant's home was obtained on the basis of these observations and the finding of drugs. The warrant was executed, and incriminating items found. The appellant submitted that, in pursuit of evidence, the police has subjected his home to a systematic surveillance operation which went beyond observation and amounted to spying, and that they had obtained the search warrant for the appellant's house as a consequence thereof, and that this violated the appellant's right to respect for his private life under art 8. It was further submitted that the leading of evidence obtained in violation of the Convention was an act incompatible with the convention. The objection was repelled and the evidence led. The appellant was convicted. He appealed against conviction, and in particular against the sheriff's rejection of the above objection.
The appellant argued that the prosecution of the appellant in reliance on, and the leading by the Crown at trial of, evidence obtained in violation of the appellant's right under art 8(1) would be an act incompatible with the appellant's Convention rights, which the Lord Advocate had no power to do; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilchrist v HM Advocate
...1971 (cap 38). At trial, the pannels were convicted. The pannels appealed against conviction. Cases referred to: Connor v HM AdvocateSCUNK 2002 JC 255; 2002 SLT 671; 2002 SCCR 423 Khan v UKHRC (2001) 31 EHRR 45 McGibbon v HM AdvocateSCUNK 2004 JC 60; 2004 SLT 588; 2004 SCCR 193 The cause ca......
-
McGibbon v HM Advocate
...1999 SCCR 971 Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2001)WLR [2004] 2 WLR 1 Birse v HM AdvocateSC 2000 JC 503 Connor v HM AdvocateSC 2002 JC 255 Lawrie v MuirSC 1950 JC 19 McClory v MacInnes 1992 SLT 501 R v HM AdvocateSC 2003 SC (PC) 21 Thompson v CroweSC 2000 JC 173 Weir v JessopSC 1991 J......
-
Her Majesty's Advocate V. James William Purves+james George Reilly
...and which deal with this general area. These are listed at this point. Gilchrist v HM Advocate 2004 SLT 1167 Connor v HM Advocate 2002 JC 255 HM Advocate v Campbell, Opinion of Lord Hardie, 28 July 2004 Henderson v HM Advocate 2005 JC 301 A v France, Series A, No 277-B 1993 17 EHRR 462 Frie......