As part of a police campaign designed to identify individuals suspected of involvement in criminal activities a CCTV image of the appellant at age 14 was published. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not a breach of the appellant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The judges disagreed on whether publication of the image interfered with the appellant’s human rights. However, they were unanimous in holding that, had there been an interference, it was justified on the basis that it was necessary for the administration of justice.
They also said that the police were entitled to disclose the image under the Data Protection Act as the publication was for the purposes of the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.