PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 50015/99) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a United Kingdom national, Mr James Roberts Hewitson (“the applicant”), on 16 March 1999.

The applicant was represented by Mr K. O’Neill, a lawyer practising in Bournemouth. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.

The applicant complained of the installation and use by the police of a covert listening device at his place of work. The case as declared admissible raises complaints under Article 8 of the Convention.

The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1) This case was assigned to the newly composed Fourth Section (Rule 52 § 1).

By a decision of 22 October 2002, the Court declared the application partly admissible, partly inadmissible.

The applicant and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1948 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in HMP Verne.

The applicant owned a garage in Dorset and had business connections in Spain. He had two Mercedes cars each of which had a false compartment in the fuel tank. The false compartments could hold up to 45 kilograms of cannabis resin. From 1994 he was suspected by the police of being involved in drug trafficking. The police also suspected him of being involved in the handling of stolen goods, including stolen vehicles.

On 22 February 1995 he was arrested by the Dorset police in relation to their suspicions of his handling stolen goods. Whilst he was in custody, a listening device was installed at his garage premises which remained there and active until 26 July 1995 when it was discovered.

On 30 December 1996 an indictment was signed charging the applicant with conspiracy to import controlled drugs and conspiracy to supply controlled drugs, namely cannabis. The prosecution evidence against the applicant relied on tape recordings made from the listening device which had been installed by the police at the applicant’s garage premises. It was acknowledged by the prosecution that without the evidence from the tapes, there was no prima facie case against the applicant.

The applicant objected to the admission of the tape recordings as evidence in his trial. He argued inter alia that the original grant of authority and the renewal of authority for the placement of the listening device were not in compliance with the Home Office Guidelines, which governed the use of surveillance equipment by the police at the relevant time. He submitted that his prosecution ought to be stayed as an abuse of the process of the court, alternatively the tape evidence should be excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”).

A preliminary hearing was held on the matter of the admissibility of the tape recordings. His Honour Judge Pryor QC held on 8 July 1997 that he was satisfied that the original authority for the use of the surveillance equipment was properly granted and that there were proper grounds for renewal, though he made some criticism of the lack of documentation on the renewals and noted that there had been a technical infringement in that one renewal took place a day late. The judge concluded that the tapes were admissible as evidence and should not be excluded under section 78 of PACE.

Following the admission of the tapes as evidence, the applicant pleaded guilty to the charges of conspiracy to import controlled drugs and conspiracy to supply controlled drugs, namely cannabis. On 5 September 1997 he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

The applicant was granted leave to appeal against his conviction. On 24 September 1997, the Court of Appeal held that in the light of the applicant’s pleas of guilty his convictions could not be regarded as “unsafe” and rejected his appeal.