CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 mai 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     338   12.05.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM     In a judgment delivered at Strasbourg on 12 May 2000 in the case of Sultan KHAN v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there has been   violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, and by 6 to 1 votes that there had been no violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 11,500 (eleven thousand five hundred) pounds sterling less 11,900.30 (eleven thousand and ninety) French francs (and thirty centimes) for legal costs and expenses and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.   1.   Principal facts   Sultan Kahn, a British national born in 1957 and living in Sheffield, was convicted of drug-dealing on the basis of evidence improperly obtained by a secret listening device installed by the police. His appeal against his conviction was dismissed on the ground that the invasion of his privacy was outweighed by the aim of proving he had been involved in serious crime. He complains that his trial was unfair, in breach of Article 6 § 1 and of violations of his right to respect for his private life (Article 8) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).     2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 1 January 1997.   In accordance with the transitional provisions of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, a panel of the Grand Chamber of the Court decided that the case should be examined by a Chamber constituted within one of the Sections of the Court. On 24 April 1999 the Court (Third Section) declared the application admissible. A hearing was held on 26 October 1999. Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa, (French), President , Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), Sir Nicolas Bratza (British), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), judges ,   and also Sally Dollé, Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [1]   Complaints   The applicant complained that his rights guaranteed under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated.   Decision of the Court   Article 8 of the Convention   By reference to earlier Convention case-law, the Court found that at the time of the interference with the applicant’s conversations, there had existed no statutory system to regulate the use of covert listening devices. The Home Office Guidelines which existed were neither legally binding nor were they directly publicly accessible. The Court therefore found that the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and his correspondence was not “in accordance with the law”, as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.   It therefore found a violation of that provision.   Article 6 of the Convention   The Court noted that it was not its role to determine, as a matter of principle, whether particular types of evidence - for example, unlawfully obtained evidence - might be admissible or, indeed, whether the applicant was guilty or not. Furthermore it recalled earlier case-law to the effect that it would not exclude as a matter of principle and in the abstract that unlawfully obtained evidence might be admissible.   In examining whether, in all the circumstances of the case, including the way in which evidence was obtained, the proceedings as a whole were unfair, the Court observed that the recording of the applicant’s conversation had not been unlawful in the sense of being contrary to domestic criminal law, even though it had been obtained in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court then considered the fact that the contested material in the present case was in effect the only evidence against the applicant. However, where as here, there was no risk of the recording being unreliable, the need for supporting evidence was correspondingly weaker. Returning to the central question whether the proceedings as a whole were fair, the Court noted that the applicant had had ample opportunity to challenge both the authenticity and the use of the recording. He did not challenge its authenticity, but challenged its use before the trial court and again before the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. At each level of jurisdiction the domestic courts assessed the effect of admission of the evidence on the fairness of the trial and discussed, amongst other matters, the non-statutory basis for the surveillance.   In the Court’s view it was clear that, had the domestic courts been of the view that the admission of the evidence would have given rise to substantive unfairness, they would have had a discretion to exclude it under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.   In these circumstances, the Court found that the use at the applicant’s trial of the secretly taped material did not conflict with the requirements of fairness guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   Article 13 of the Convention   The Court found that none of the remedies open to the applicant to challenge the alleged lack of an adequate basis in law complied with the requirement of Article 13 that a remedy must allow the competent national authority to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief.   Article 41 of the Convention   The Court awarded the applicant the sum of £11,500 plus VAT for costs and expenses less sums received by way of legal aid.   Judge Loucaides expressed a partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion which is annexed to the judgment.   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.