Peck v UK [2003] EHRR 287 (App. No. 00044647/98)
Release of CCTV footage of suicidal man breached Article 8 ECHR
Facts
The applicant was captured on CCTV as he carried a large knife and was in the process of attempting suicide. The police were able to prevent him from causing himself fatal harm. The CCTV footage was subsequently released to the press in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of CCTV.
Issue
The applicant contented that his right to private life under Article 8 ECHR had been breached by the disclosure of the CCTV footage by the local authority. He also contended a breach of Article 13 ECHR which requires the right to an effective remedy.
Decision/Outcome
The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a breach of Article 8. There was no relevant or sufficient reason to support the disclosure of the CCTV footage which revealed the applicant’s identity. There had been insufficient safeguards put in place to ensure protection of the applicant’s identity and the protection of personal data was of fundamental importance to a person’s enjoyment of his or her private life. Article 8 applied even though the applicant was in a public street because he was not participating in a public event and was not a public figure. The seriousness of the interference with the applicant’s rights was not diminished by his subsequent voluntary appearances in the media to discuss the publication of the footage. The Court also found a breach of Article 13 as the applicant did not have access to an effective remedy in relation to the breach of his Article 8 rights.
262 words
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Peck v United Kingdom (Application No. 44647/98), decided on 28 January 2003. The findings on Articles 8 and 13 ECHR are correctly stated. The principles established in this case — that Article 8 can apply to filming in a public place, that disclosure of CCTV footage revealing a person’s identity may breach the right to private life, and that insufficient domestic remedies can engage Article 13 — remain good law and continue to be cited in UK courts and academic commentary.
One minor clarification worth noting: the Human Rights Act 1998 has since embedded Convention rights into domestic UK law, and subsequent domestic case law (including cases before the UK Supreme Court) has developed the law on privacy, misuse of private information, and data protection in ways that now provide more developed domestic remedies than existed at the time of the Peck judgment. The UK’s departure from the European Union does not affect the continued authority of this case, as the ECHR is a Council of Europe instrument entirely separate from EU membership. The article remains broadly accurate as a case summary.
