Covert Video Identification: European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8
| Published date | 01 December 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.67.6.480.19431 |
| Date | 01 December 2003 |
| Subject Matter | European Court of Human Rights |
European Court of Human Rights
Covert Video Identification: European Convention on
Human Rights, Article 8
Perry v United Kingdom Application No. 63737/00, The Times
(26 August 2003)
The applicant had been arrested in 1997 on suspicion of carrying out a
number of armed robberies on mini-cab drivers. He agreed to participate
in identification parades but failed to attend on the day on which they
were due to take place. Instead he sent a doctor’s note stating that he
was too ill to go to work. The parades were rearranged and notice to that
effect was sent to the applicant’s home address.
The applicant did not attend the rearranged parade, stating that he
had not received notification as he had changed address. A further
robbery then occurred for which the applicant was arrested. The appli-
cant again agreed to stand on an identification parade, but again failed to
attend on the day that it was to take place. Following this failure to
attend two more robberies were committed with which the applicant
was subsequently charged.
The mainstay of the prosecution’s case against the applicant would be
the ability of a number of witnesses to make visual identifications and
for this reason submitting the applicant to an identification parade was
of great importance. In light of the applicant’s failure to attend the
parades that had been arranged, the police decided to arrange a video
identification. Permission to film the applicant covertly for this purpose
was sought from the Deputy Chief Constable under Home Office
guidelines.
The applicant was taken from prison, where he was being detained in
relation to another matter, to a police station. Both the applicant and the
prison authorities had been informed that this was for identification
purposes and further interviews regarding the armed robberies. On
arrival at the police station he was invited to participate in an identifica-
tion parade but refused.
The custody suite at the police station was fitted with a camera which
was kept running at all times and covered an area in which police
officers and other suspects came and went. Before the applicant arrived
at the police station an engineer made adjustments to the camera to
ensure that clear images were obtained that were suitable for use in a
video identification. The footage of the applicant was then used in a
compilation with footage of 11 other volunteers who imitated the
actions of the applicant. Two of the witnesses who viewed the video
compilation picked out the applicant. Neither the applicant nor his
solicitor were informed that a tape had been made or used for identifica-
tion purposes and were, therefore, not given an opportunity to view it
prior to its use.
480
To continue reading
Request your trial