7 September 2005
In a reported case Tuckers Police Actions Department brought a successful claim against the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police whose officers acted in breach of Mr Djerdjar’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights. In Djerdjar v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (23 February 2005) HHJ Collins at Central London County Court awarded £7,500 to Mr Djerdjar.
The claimant’s picture was placed in two local newspapers under an agreement between the police and the papers. It was alleged that Mr Djerdjar had stolen a bag of money from a pub. There were riders to the effect that persons in the photographs may be innocent.
The picture had come from CCTV footage recorded by the pub. The person suspected of the theft was thought to have worn a Manchester United shirt. Mr Djerdjar was in the pub wearing a Manchester United shirt but there were significant differences in the appearance of the Mr Djerdjar and the real suspect.
Upon seeing himself in the newspaper the claimant turned himself in and was detained for over an hour, interviewed and bailed to return a week later. Shortly before he was due to return he was informed by the police that a mistake had been made and he was no longer under suspicion.
The judge found that the investigation by which police failed to notice the significant differences between the images of the suspects, before submitting the image for publication was “seriously deficient”. The judge also noted that scheme by which pictures would be shared with the local press made no mention of consideration of the intended subjects’ Art 8 rights. Finally, the Metropolitan police policy required in each case authorisation by a borough commander and consultation with the CPS before disclosure was made, but this was not done.
The judge found that publication of the photographs with the allegations of theft was a breach of Art 8(1) breach of right to respect for privacy. A combination of the failures of the police meant that publication in the particular circumstances, although for the legitimate aim of preventing crime, was a disproportionate breach of the claimant’s Art 8(1) rights.
The judge awarded the Claimant £7,500 under s8 Human Rights Act. This was made up of £2,500 for psychiatric damage he had suffered; and £5,000 additionally for the distress caused by the publication. The judge said that he took account especially of the fact that the police had not issued an apology or a retraction to be published in the newspapers.