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 authorisation and carrying out of official intercepts. Evidence obtained mught be used to suggest further enquiries the results of which can be admitted even thought the original might still not be directly admissible. There was no obligation on the prosecution to disclose to the defence the inadmissible evidence.
Lord Mustill narrated the general prohibitions in section 1 and said: ‘To these general prohibitions section 1(2) creates exceptions in the case of (a) an interception made in obedience to a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, and (b) an interception made by someone who has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to or by whom the communication is sent has consented to the interception. Subsection 3 creates further exceptions, not here material.’
Judges:
Lord Mustill
Citations:
Times 05-Nov-1993, Gazette 19-Jan-1994, Independent 09-Nov-1993, [1994] 2 AC 130
Statutes:
Interception of Communications Act 1985 2(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Preston and Others CACD 17-Jun-1992
Evidence from telephone taps cannot be obtained for prosecution, and were inadmissible in court having been obtained unfairly. . .
Cited by:
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 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Davis (Iain); Regina v Ellis, Regina v Gregory, Regina v Simms, Regina v Martin CACD 19-May-2006
The several defendants complained at the use at their trials of evidence given anonymously. The perceived need for anonymity arose because, from intimidation, the witnesses would not be willing to give their evidence without it.
Held: The . .
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 . .
Cited – Morgans v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 18-Feb-2000
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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Khan (Sultan) HL 2-Jul-1996
The police had obtained the evidence against the defendant by fixing a covert listening device at an apartment visited by the defendant, and by recording his conversations there. The defendant appealed, saying that the court should have regard to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.87572
