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 Chalkley v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 63831/00 Decision 26.9.2002 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Admission as evidence in criminal proceedings of evidence obtained through use of a listening device illegally installed in the suspect’s home: inadmissible Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Unlawful installation of listening device in suspect’s home by police: admissible The applicant was suspected by the police of having committed a robbery. It was decided to conceal a listening device in his home. The applicant and his spouse were arrested in connection with credit card fraud, which had previously been the subject of a police enquiry but had not been followed up at the time. During their detention, police officers unlawfully entered the applicant’s house, using his keys, and installed the device. They made a copy of the key. The applicant was subsequently arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary. At his trial, he applied to have the evidence obtained through the listening device excluded. The judge denied his application. There was other evidence against the applicant, but when the recorded conversations were admitted, he decided to change his plea to guilty and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed, claiming that his conviction was founded upon the trial judge’s erroneous admission of evidence that was so damning to his case that conviction was inevitable. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The Court was satisfied that proper procedural safeguards were in place and that the proceedings had not been unfair: manifestly ill-founded (cf. Khan judgment of 12 May 2000). Admissible under Article 8: The Government conceded that the installation of the device was not in accordance with law.   © 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