Regina v Hardy (Brian); Regina v Hardy (Danny): CACD 31 Oct 2002

Police working undercover were asked to use mobile telephones. They recorded their conversations. At trial the defendants asked for the details of the authorisation for the interception of the communications, but were given only part information before the intercepts were admitted. They appealed against the conviction.
Held: The recordings of their own telephone conversations by the officers were not interceptions. No third party was listening in on a conversation between others. They could have given evidence as to the content of the conversations, and taken notes, and the recordings corroborated the officer’s account.
Tape recording by undercover officers of telephone conversations with the Appellants was not an interception of the communication in the course of its transmission within the meaning of section 2(2) RIPA, but was the same as the secret recording by the officer of the conversation whilst meeting the suspect face to face.


Rose LJ, Hughes, Royce JJ


Times 18-Nov-2002, Gazette 19-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 3012




Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 2(2)

Cited by:

CitedEdmondson 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

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178194