Armstrong v United Kingdom

Date

16 July 2002

Legislation

European Convention on Human Rights, arts. 8 and 13
Home Office Guidelines on Covert Surveillance 1984
Police Act 1997
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, ss. 26(3) and 48(1)

Keywords

surveillance; criminal offences; investigations; human rights; respect for private life; effective remedy; bugging

Counsel

unknown

Solicitors

unknown

Judge

Judges Pellonpää, Bratza, Ridruejo, Palm, Straznicka, Maruste, Pavlovschi

Court

European Court of Human Rights

Reported

(2003) 36 EHRR 30, Times 8 June 2002

Summary

Armstrong was convicted of two offences involving the supply of drugs. The only evidence was obtained from a covert surveillance operation which included the recording of conversations in the home of one of Armstrong's co-defendants.

Armstrong appealed to the ECHR on the basis of breach of his rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy for violation of one’s human rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Decision

The court held that:-

• There had been a breach of Article 8. Under Article 8, any interference with this right by a public authority must be “in accordance with the law”. At the relevant time there had been no statutory system to regulate the use of covert recording devices by the Police so that the surveillance had not been in accordance with the law.

NB this has now been rectified by the enactment of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

• The UK was also found to violate Article 13 as Armstrong did not have an effective remedy under domestic law against the police for the unlawful surveillance measures used against him.

NB this has now been rectified, as RIPA 2000 establishes an Investigatory Powers Tribunal to deal with such complaints.