Advertisement

Telephone-Tap Evidence and Administrative Detention in the UK

  • John R. Spencer
Chapter

Abstract

In the UK, it is currently the law that the contents of intercepted telephone calls, or letters intercepted by transmission in the post, are generally inadmissible as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings; and this so, whether the interception was carried out legally or illegally. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to position everywhere else in the world, including the rest of the common law world, where (broadly speaking) the rule is that the intercepts are admissible, provided they were obtained legally. It is also counterintuitive to the point where even intelligent people with legal training sometimes find it hard to grasp. (When setting examination papers in evidence for law students, I regularly include, as a trap to the unwary, a problem where a piece of damning evidence against the defendant is an intercepted phone-call: and although the class has heard the rule explained in lectures, at least a third invariably tells me, wrongly, that the intercept is admissible, provided it was lawfully obtained.)

Keywords

Criminal Proceeding Criminal Court Criminal Procedure Telephone Conversation Control Order 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Archbold, J.F. (2008). Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases. London: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, J. (1985). The police and tape recorders. Criminal Law Review, Issue 11 (November), 695–704.Google Scholar
  3. BBC News, 6 February 2008.Google Scholar
  4. Blick, A., Choudhury, T. and Weir, S. (2006). The rules of the game – terrorism, community and human rights: A report by Democratic Audit for the Joseph Rowntree Trust. http://www.democraticaudit.com/download/breaking-news/Terrorism-Final.pdf
  5. Committee of Privy Councillors (1957). Report Appointed to Inquire into the Interception of Communications (Cmnd. 283). London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  6. Cross, R. (1967). Evidence (3rd edition). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  7. Dennis, I. (2002). The Law of Evidence (2nd edition). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  8. Ewing, K.D. and Gearty, C.A. (1990). Freedom Under Thatcher: Civil Liberties in Modern Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hardcastle, M.S. (1881). Life of John, Lord Campbell (Volume 2). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  10. House of Lords (2007). Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 28 Days, Intercept and Post-Charge Questioning (HL Paper 157/HC 394). http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/157/157.pdf
  11. JUSTICE (2006). Intercept Evidence: Lifting the Ban. http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/JUSTICE%20Intercept%20Evidence%20report.pdf
  12. Lord Lloyd of Berwick (1996). Inquiry into Legislation against Terrorism Volume one (Cm 3420). London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  13. Munday, R. (2000). The inadmissibility of evidence relating to intercepted communication. Cambridge Law Journal, Volume 59, 267–270.Google Scholar
  14. Ormerod, D. and McKay, S. (2004). Telephone intercepts and their admissibility. Criminal Law Review, Issue 1 (January), 15–38.Google Scholar
  15. Ormerod, D. (2005). Commentary. Criminal Law Review, Issue 3 (March), 222–224.Google Scholar
  16. Parker, C.S. (1907). Life and Letters of Sir James Graham 1792–1861. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  17. Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. (1981). Report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (Cmnd 8092). London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  18. Ryder, M. (2008, 5 May). RIPA reviewed. Archbold News, Issue 4.Google Scholar
  19. Secret Committee of the House of Lords. (1844). Report Relative to the Post Office.Google Scholar
  20. Secretary of State for the Home Department (1985). The Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom: A Consultation Paper (Cmnd. 9438). http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-1999-interception-comms?view=Binary.
  21. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2008). Privy Council Review of Intercept as Evidence: Report to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary (Cm 7324). http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7324/7324.pdf.
  22. Tapper, C. (2007). Cross and Tapper on Evidence (11th edition). Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Williams, V. (2005). The Surveillance and Intelligence Law Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations