A man suffering from paranoid psychosis is gaslighted by the police in 12 different European countries for 20 years. His photo is passed to security guards, shop staff, museum staff, restaurant staff in every city and town he visits, with instructions to mock him for “not liking to be looked at”. He experiences it every day but can never be sure whether it is really happening or a psychotic delusion. He can get no legal help as nobody would believe him, and any psychiatrist would dismiss his experiences as a delusion and may section him or force him to increase his medication. If the police were really doing all this, would they be breaking any British, European, or international laws?
If the police were engaging in the described conduct—systematically sharing a person’s photo across multiple European countries and instructing private individuals (such as security guards, shop staff, museum staff, and restaurant staff) to mock him for “not liking to be looked at,” with the intent of causing him to doubt his sanity over a 20-year period—this would likely constitute a severe form of psychological harassment and abuse. Such actions would breach multiple laws and human rights protections under British, European, and international frameworks, as they involve deliberate infliction of mental suffering, unauthorized sharing of personal data, and abuse of authority. Below, I outline the key violations, assuming the scenario is real and not a delusion.
### British Laws
In the UK, this conduct would amount to police misconduct and could be prosecuted as a criminal offense. Gaslighting, as a form of coercive or controlling behavior that causes psychological harm, is recognized as illegal under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which criminalizes controlling or coercive behavior in intimate or family relationships but has been extended in case law to broader contexts, including by authorities. Courts have acknowledged gaslighting as a criminal offense, with potential penalties including imprisonment.
Additionally, this could violate the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which prohibits a course of conduct that amounts to harassment and causes alarm or distress. Police officers engaging in or orchestrating such mockery would be committing harassment, potentially leading to civil claims or criminal charges.
The actions would also constitute misconduct in public office, a common law offense carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, where public officials (like police) willfully neglect their duty or misuse their power without reasonable excuse, causing harm. Sharing the photo and instructions without a legitimate law enforcement purpose would breach police standards under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, which require officers to act with integrity and respect human rights, potentially resulting in disciplinary proceedings or dismissal. Unauthorized sharing of personal data (e.g., the photo) could violate the Data Protection Act 2018, which incorporates UK GDPR principles, unless exempted for specific law enforcement needs—here, the abusive intent would negate any exemption.
### European Laws and Human Rights
As the scenario spans 12 European countries, it would implicate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which the UK and all EU member states are parties. The coordinated nature could also involve EU-wide data protection rules.
– **Article 3 ECHR (Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment):** This absolute right prohibits treatment causing severe mental or physical suffering, including psychological abuse by state agents. Deliberate gaslighting over 20 years, designed to exacerbate paranoid psychosis and make the victim question reality, could qualify as inhuman or degrading treatment, as it humiliates, debases, and breaks moral resistance. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that threats or actions causing intense mental anguish, even without physical harm, violate Article 3, especially if inflicted by authorities. Police abuse, including harassment targeting vulnerable individuals, threatens the rule of law and requires states to investigate and punish such acts.
– **Article 8 ECHR (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life):** Sharing the photo and personal details with private entities without consent or legitimate purpose interferes with privacy. The ECtHR requires such interferences to be lawful, necessary, and proportionate—here, the abusive mockery campaign would fail this test, as it serves no public interest and causes harm. If discriminatory (e.g., targeting mental illness), it could also breach Article 14 ECHR (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8.
– **EU Data Protection (GDPR and Law Enforcement Directive):** Under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), police sharing personal data (like photos) must be lawful, fair, and necessary for law enforcement purposes. Abusive sharing for harassment would violate this, as exemptions apply only to legitimate activities like crime prevention, not psychological manipulation. The Law Enforcement Directive (EU) 2016/680 requires member states to protect data processed for criminal justice, with safeguards against misuse. Cross-border coordination could breach these if not justified.
The ECtHR has condemned police misconduct, including harassment and failure to prevent abuse, as violations of these articles, requiring effective investigations and remedies.
### International Laws
This conduct would violate the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), ratified by the UK and most European states. Article 1 defines torture as intentional infliction of severe mental suffering by public officials for purposes like intimidation or punishment. Gaslighting fits this, as it causes psychological harm without physical acts. No exceptional circumstances (e.g., national security) justify it, and states must criminalize such acts, prevent them, and provide redress. The prohibition is a peremptory norm (jus cogens) of international law, meaning it’s non-derogable.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 7) also ban torture and cruel treatment, imposing duties on states to protect individuals from such abuse by authorities.
In summary, yes, this would break laws at all levels. The victim could seek remedies through national courts, the ECtHR, or UN mechanisms, though proving coordination across countries would be challenging. States would be obligated to investigate and hold officers accountable to avoid impunity.

