The claimants had been prosecuted following authorised intrusive surveillance. They challenged the laws which prevented them from asking questions about interception, and therefore from defending themselves. The defendants said that the police had deliberately failed to record details which would demonstrate that the recordings had been from an interception rather than the surveillance.
Held: The court posed several preliminary questions to be answered by the parties before the matter could proceed.
Citations:
46559/06, [2009] ECHR 113, [2011] ECHR 1328
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 17 18, Official Secrets Act 1989 4, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78
Citing:
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 5 of 2002) HL 14-Oct-2004
The Attorney General sought the correct interpretation of section 17 where a court was asked as to whether evidence obtained from a telephone tapping had been taken from a public or private network. A chief constable suspected that the defendants, . .
Cited – Regina v Austin and others CACD 16-May-2008
The defendants sought leave to appeal against convictions for conspiracy to supply drugs. The prosecutor relied on surveillance evidence showing meetings and telephone calls between the defendants; evidence from recording devices in defendants’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Police
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.280371