Without a warrant, the police had arranged for a call logger to retain details of the calls made, including the number called, time and duration. The dialing itself was a communication, which established a connection, through which further communication took place.
Held: Intercepts of telephone calls, including call logs, are inadmissible unless they have been carried out had been for one of the purposes referred to in clause 1(3) of the Act. The production of evidence, without it being challenged as to its provenance, could not have been intended.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde
Times 18-Feb-2000, Gazette 02-Mar-2000,  UKHL 9,  2 All ER 522,  2 WLR 386,  Crim LR 576,  1 AC 315
House of Lords, Bailii
Interception of Communications Act 1985
England and Wales
Overruled – Regina v Effik; Same v Micthell CACD 23-Mar-1992
The police had unlawfully intercepted telephone calls made by the defendant.
Held: The evidence had been properly admitted notwithstanding its unlawful origins. . .
 95 Cr App 427, Times 23-Mar-92
Cited – Regina v Preston, Preston, Clarke Etc HL 5-Nov-1993
Telephone tapping evidence consisting of tapping records are to be destroyed after their use for the purpose obtained, but a prosecution was not within that purpose. The underlying purpose of the 1985 Act is to protect information as to the . .
Times 05-Nov-93, Gazette 19-Jan-94, Independent 09-Nov-93,  2 AC 130
Appeal from – Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 29-Dec-1998
The defendant argued that once the prosecutor had all the material on which the prosecution was eventually brought, then for the purposes of section 11(2) time began to run.
Held: When considering the time limits for a prosecution under the . .
Times 29-Dec-98,  1 WLR 968
Cited – Regina v Allan, Bunting and Boodhoo CACD 6-Apr-2001
The authorities intercepted telephone conversations on card phones used by prisoners with people outside the prison. Was the intercepted material admissible? Was it a ‘communication in the course of its transmission . . by means of a public . .
 EWCA Crim 1025/6
Cited – W, Regina v (Attorney General’s reference no 5 of 2002) CACD 12-Jun-2003
Three serving police officers provided confidential information to a known criminal. The Chief Constable authorised interception of telephones at a police station, a private network. The court accepted that section 17 prevented the defence asserting . .
 EWCA Crim 1632, Times 16-Jun-03, Gazette 10-Jul-03,  1 WLR 2902
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, . .
 UKHL 40,  4 All ER 901,  1 AC 167,  3 WLR 957
Cited – Regina v Sargent HL 25-Oct-2001
When a telephone engineer used his position to make unauthorised telephone intercepts, and produced apparent evidence of criminal activity, he was, under the Act, a person engaged in providing a public communications system, and the recordings were . .
Gazette 15-Nov-01,  UKHL 54,  1 AC 347,  1 All ER 161,  1 Cr App R 26,  3 WLR 992
Cited – Regina v P and others HL 19-Dec-2000
Where communications had been intercepted in a foreign country, and the manner of such interceptions had been lawful in that country, the evidence produced was admissible in evidence in a trial in England. An admission of such evidence was not an . .
Times 19-Dec-00, Gazette 22-Feb-01,  1 AC 146,  UKHL 69,  UKHL 72,  2 Cr App R 8,  2 All ER 58,  2 WLR 463
Cited – Lamont-Perkins v Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA) Admn 24-Apr-2012
The defendant had been convicted of animal cruelty. She appealed to the Crown Court, and now appealed against rulings made by the judge as to the time limits for a prosecution under the 2006 Act in the Magistrates Court. She said that the RSPCA . .
 EWHC 1002 (Admin)
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.83835