Keegan v the United Kingdom - 28867/03 [2009] ECHR 2254 (3 December 2009)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern : the applicants' right to respect for their private and family life in that the police failed to carry out effectively basic steps to verify the connection between the address and the offence under investigation before carrying out a forced entry to search the applicants' home (Article 8); and the lack of effective remedy at the time as damages only lay where it could be shown that the police had acted with malice (Article 13) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with the United Kingdom's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

This case concerns the breach of the applicants' right to respect for their private and family life in that on 21/10/1999, the police, mistakenly believing that an armed robber lived at their address, forced entry to search their home on the basis of a warrant which had been obtained without effectively carrying out the basic steps to verify the connection between the address and the offence under investigation (violation of Article 8).

Actions for damages against the police at the material time, i.e. before the entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, could only succeed where it could be shown that the police had acted with malice. Negligence of the kind found in this case did not qualify (violation of Article 13).

The government believes that the Human Rights Act 1998 taken together with PACE Code B (Code of Practice for Searches of Premises by Police Officers and the Seizure of Property found by Police Officers on Persons or Premises, made under section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984), which entered into effect on 01/01/2006, prevents new, similar violations of Articles 8 and 13 from arising.

Paragraph 3.1 of Code B provides guidance on obtaining search warrants and clearly states that before making an application on the basis of information that appears to justify an application, the officer must take reasonable steps to check that the information is accurate, recent and not provided maliciously or irresponsibly, and make reasonable enquiries to establish whether anything is known about the likely occupier of the premises.

The relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act, are Sections 6, 7 and 8. Here it should be recalled that public authorities are obliged, under Section 6 of that Act, to act in accordance with the Convention. If they were not to do so, their acts would be unlawful and the injured party could bring proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. By virtue of Section 8 of the Act, a court may grant whatever remedies it considers just and appropriate, including damages.

As regards the information provided to the relevant authorities about the Convention requirements, the Government recalls that the Court's judgment has been published and commented upon, inter alia, in the All England Reports [2006] All ER (D) 235, the Times Law Reports (09/09/2006), and the Human Rights Law Review EHRLE 2006, 5, 648-650.

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

1 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 2009 at the 1072nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
--	15 000 EUR	9 500 EUR	24 500 EUR
Paid on 06/02/2007, plus interest

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Keegan v the United Kingdom - 28867/03 [2009] ECHR 2254 (3 December 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/2254.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 2254