The material obtained by intercepting signals passing between a base unit and the handset of a cordless telephone was admissible because no communication was being made by means of a public system when the calls were intercepted by the police. A cordless phone in house was not ‘comprised in’ nor part of a public telecommunications system, and was not covered by the Act, and could be intercepted without warrant or authority. ‘Once again, one sees the emphasis on the duty of the person running the public system and the transmission through that system. . My Lords, in the light of these statutory provisions, I do not, for my part, entertain any doubt that the trial judge was right in concluding that the Geemarc cordless telephone used by Miss Sumer was a privately run system. The apparatus was clearly not ‘comprised in’ the public British Telecommunications system although it was connected to it by means of the socket at which, on the judges’ finding, that system ended. A communication through a telecommunication system consists of a series of electronic impulses and what was actually intercepted by the use of the police officers’ radio receiver consisted of the impulses transmitted between the base unit and the handset, both of which formed part of a telecommunication system ‘run’ by Miss Sumer (Act of 1983, section 4(2)) but formed no part of the public telecommunication system run by British Telecommunications.’
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton
Gazette 26-Oct-1994, Independent 29-Jul-1994, Times 22-Jul-1994, [1995] AC 1309
Interception of Communications Act 1985 1 9
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – 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. . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – 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. . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 E CACD 26-Apr-2004
The court was asked as to the permissibility of admitting covert recordings of the accused’s car by investigating officers, which recorded the accused’s words as they spoke into their telephones. The defendants said that this amount to interception . .
Cited – Edmondson and Others v Regina CACD 28-Jun-2013
Course of Transmission includes Voicemails
The defendants appealed against convictions for conspiracy to intercept telephone voicemail messages whilst employed in various positions in newspapers. The issue boiled down to when the ‘course of transmission’ of a voicemail message ended, that is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Leading Case
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.86626
