Kinloch v Her Majesty's Advocate (Scotland)

Kinloch v Her Majesty's Advocate (Scotland)

Police surveillance in public places without authorisation did not breach article 8 as there was no reasonable expectation of privacy; leading evidence from such surveillance was not incompatible with article 6; Gilchrist v HM Advocate was correctly decided.

Parties
Appellant: James Kinloch; Respondent: Her Majesty's Advocate
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Following Refusal of Devolution Minute and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Devolution Issues, Covert Surveillance, Admissibility of Evidence, Article 8 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Devolution Issues Covert Surveillance Admissibility of Evidence Article 8 ECHR Article 6 ECHR

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kinloch

Appellant

Her Majesty's Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Following Refusal of Devolution Minute and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police observations without authorisation breached article 8 rights
  2. 2 Whether leading evidence from unauthorised surveillance was incompatible with article 6 rights and ultra vires under section 57(2) Scotland Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

Police surveillance in public places without authorisation did not breach article 8 as there was no reasonable expectation of privacy; leading evidence from such surveillance was not incompatible with article 6; Gilchrist v HM Advocate was correctly decided.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • appeal dismissed; no further orders