{"title":"The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and the Criminal Suspect","authors":"Joe Purshouse","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In In re JR38, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal from a 14 year-old boy who argued that the dissemination of his image, taken whilst he was participating in sectarian rioting, to local newspapers, violated his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the Court was divided on whether or not the measures taken by the police engaged the applicant's Article 8(1) rights at all. This case raises fundamental questions as to the scope of private life in the context of criminal investigations, and the place of the European Court of Human Rights’ ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ test in determining whether Article 8(1) of the ECHR is engaged. This case comment subjects the majority's interpretation of Article 8(1) to critical scrutiny, concluding that this interpretation may unduly restrict the scope of Article 8 protection for those subject to criminal investigations.","PeriodicalId":171535,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Rights & Liberties (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Rights & Liberties (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
In In re JR38, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal from a 14 year-old boy who argued that the dissemination of his image, taken whilst he was participating in sectarian rioting, to local newspapers, violated his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the Court was divided on whether or not the measures taken by the police engaged the applicant's Article 8(1) rights at all. This case raises fundamental questions as to the scope of private life in the context of criminal investigations, and the place of the European Court of Human Rights’ ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ test in determining whether Article 8(1) of the ECHR is engaged. This case comment subjects the majority's interpretation of Article 8(1) to critical scrutiny, concluding that this interpretation may unduly restrict the scope of Article 8 protection for those subject to criminal investigations.
在In re JR38一案中,最高法院一致驳回了一名14岁男孩的上诉,他辩称,在当地报纸上传播他参与宗派骚乱时拍摄的照片侵犯了他根据《欧洲人权公约》(ECHR)第8条享有的权利。但是,对于警察采取的措施是否涉及到申请人第8(1)条的权利,本院意见不一。本案提出了一些基本问题,如刑事调查背景下私人生活的范围,以及欧洲人权法院在确定是否适用《欧洲人权公约》第8(1)条时“对隐私的合理期望”测试的位置。本案评论将多数人对第8条第(1)款的解释置于批判性审查之下,得出的结论是,这种解释可能不当地限制了第8条对受刑事调查的人的保护范围。