Interception of Communications: Failure to Comply with the Right to Private Life
| Published date | 01 April 2003 |
| Date | 01 April 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201830306700204 |
| Subject Matter | European Court of Human Rights |
European Court
of
Human Rights
Interception
of Communications:
Failure
to
Comply
with
the
Right
to Private Life
Taylor-Sabori vUnited Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 17
Between
August 1995
and
January
1996
the
applicant was
the
target of
covert surveillance by
the
police. Using a clone of
the
applicant's pager,
the
police
were
able to receive
the
same messages as those transmitted to
the
'original' pager. The pager system used by
the
applicant
and
inter-
cepted by
the
police
operated
as follows:
the
sender,
whether
in
the
UK
or overseas,
would
telephone
the
pager
bureau
in
the
UK via
the
public
telephone
network.
The pager
operator
would
key
the
message into a
computer
and
read
it back to
the
sender
to confirm its accuracy. The
computer
message was transmitted
through
the
public
telephone
system
to
the
pager terminal, from
where
it
would
be relayed by radio to a
regional base station and, from there, by radio, simultaneously to
the
applicant's pager,
and
therefore also to
the
parallel pager held by
the
police,
which
displayed
the
message in text. On 21
January
1996
the
applicant was arrested
and
charged with conspiracy to supply a Class A
drug, Ecstasy.
It
was alleged
that
he was a principal organiser in
the
importation of
the
Ecstasy tablets from Holland to
the
UK.
Part of
the
prosecution case against
the
applicant consisted of
the
contemporaneous
written
notes of
the
pager messages,
which
had
been
transcribed by
the
police. Counsel for
the
applicant argued
that
the
notes
should
not
be admitted in evidence as
the
interception
had
been
without
a
warrant
and
so constituted acriminal offence
under
s. 1 of
the
Interception of Communications Act 1985. Under s. 1(1) of
the
1985
Act,
anyone
who
intentionally intercepted a
communication
in
the
course of its transmission by
means
of a public communications system
was guilty of a criminal offence, unless
the
interception was carried
out
pursuant
to a
warrant
issued in compliance
with
the
Act. However,
the
trial
judge
ruled that, since
the
messages
had
been
transmitted via a
private system,
the
1985 Act did
not
apply
and
no
warrant
had
been
necessary. Though
the
applicant pleaded
not
guilty, he was convicted
and
sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. He subsequently appealed to
the
Court of Appeal against
both
conviction
and
sentence. The appeal
was dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld
the
trial judge's ruling
that
the
messages
had
been
intercepted at the point of transmission
on
the
private radio system, so
that
the
1985 Act did
not
apply
and
the
messages
were
admissible.
The applicant took his case to
the
European Court of
Human
Rights
claiming abreach of his right to private life
under
Article 8,
and
the
lack
of an effective
remedy
at national level for
the
Article 8 breach,
under
Article 13.
HELD,
FINDING
A
VIOLATION
OF
ARTICLE
8
AND
ARTICLE
13,
the
interception of
the
pager messages
had
not
been
in accordance with law
1I8
To continue reading
Request your trial