This case study is designed to explore the impact of Article 8 on civil and criminal procedure. It is based on Jones v University of Warwick  1 WLR 954 (I will send an electronic copy of the case separately).
In Schenk v Switzerland (1988) 13 EHRR 242 the ECHR considered the effect in a criminal trial of a breach of Article 6. However, the Court declined to consider the effect of a breach of Article 8.
In Jones the Court of Appeal in England and Wales decided that in considering whether the objective of dealing with cases “justly” required the admission of evidence obtained in breach of Article 8, the court was acting within Article 8(2).
Is that approach correct? And should the same approach be taken in both criminal cases and in disputes between private individuals?