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, . .
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 . .
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 of the calls. Held: If what happened was interception, evidence of the content of any telephone calls … Continue reading Regina v E: CACD 26 Apr 2004