Article 8

Question 1

Von Hannover v Germany (No. 1) (2004)

Answer 1

Photos of Princess Caroline skiing or on a horse did not contribute to any “debate of general interest”, as there is no legitimate interest in the public knowing where she is and in her private life in general

Question 2

Halford v UK (1997)

Answer 2

There can be a reasonable expectation of privacy for workplace calls, which engages A8

Interference here was not “in accordance with the law”, as there was no law governing interception of calls made outside the public network

Question 3

Wainwright v UK (2006)

Answer 3

Highly obtrusive searches on visiting a prison breached A8, as there were other ways to deal with the prison’s drug problem

A13: Although the applicants had a remedy for the battery, they didn’t for the other parts of the obtrusive searches, which breached A13

Question 4

Peck v UK (2003)

Answer 4

CCTV footage of a man used in a public campaign about crime - this breaches A8. There had been no attempt to contact him to gain consent, or to anonymise him

Question 5

Wood v Met Police Commissioner (2009)

Answer 5

The police took and retained photos of a peaceful protestor. Taking the photos was ok, but retaining them was not proportionate and breached A8

Question 6

Allette v Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home (2022)

Answer 6

It did not breach A8 rights of a care worker to oblige her to be vaccinated to work there, as this was proportionate in the circumstances

Question 7

Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd (2008)

Answer 7

Photos of a child, even on the street undertaking an ordinary activity, could have a reasonable expectation of privacy

(Though there still was an area of routine activity, particularly in relation to adults, that would not attract this)