2
KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Background facts
5. On 23 December 1990, the applicant was arrested for drunkenness
and taken to Hammersmith Police Station. He was held overnight in a cell
shared by another detainee, Patrick Quinn. The next day, Mr Quinn was
found dead with severe injuries. The applicant was charged with his murder.
The applicant alleged that the police had framed him for the murder in order
to cover up their own wrongdoing. In September 1991, the applicant was
found guilty of the murder of Mr Quinn and was sentenced to life
imprisonment. In February 1993, his conviction was overturned on appeal.
At a first retrial, one of the police officers, a key prosecution witness, failed
to appear. He was subsequently declared mentally unstable and was
withdrawn from the proceedings. Following a second retrial, the applicant
was convicted in 1994 of manslaughter and sentenced to nine years'
imprisonment. The case was controversial in the United Kingdom on
account of missing and conflicting police evidence which led some –
including a number of Members of Parliament – to question the safety of the
applicant's conviction.
6. In 1996, the applicant was released from prison. Following his
release, he became active in campaigning against miscarriages of justice
generally. He subsequently started a removal business called Small Moves,
undertaking small moves and van hire in London. Although his business did
well at the beginning, he subsequently began to experience interference with
his business telephone calls. He alleged that local calls to his telephone were
not being put through to him and that he was receiving a number of timewasting hoax calls. The applicant suspected that this was because his mail,
telephone and email communications were being intercepted. As a result of
the interference, the applicant's business began to suffer.
7. The applicant believed that the interception of his communications
was directly linked to his high profile case and his subsequent involvement
in campaigning against miscarriages of justice. He alleged that the police
and security services were continually and unlawfully renewing an
interception warrant – originally authorised for the criminal proceedings
against him – in order to intimidate him and undermine his business
activities.