R v Effik ; R v Mitchell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 March 1992 |
| Date | 19 March 1992 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Steyn, Mr Justice Turner and Mr Justice Morland
Criminal evidence - admissibility - unauthorised phone tapping
Evidence unlawfully obtained by the police as a result of unauthorised interceptions of telephone conversations was admissible. Section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 did not operate so as to make such evdence inadmissible.
The Court of Appeal so held when it dismissed the appeals of Godwin Eno Effik and Graham Martin Mitchell against their convictions at Kingston upon Thames Crown Court (Judge Addison and a jury) on April 19, 1990 for multiple offences of conspiracy to supply a controlled drug for which they were sentenced to a total of nine and four years imprisonment respectively.
Section 1 of the 1985 Act provides: "(1) … a person who intentionally intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission … by means of a public telecommunication system shall be guilty of an offence…
"(2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence … if (a) the communication is intercepted in obedience to a warrant issued by the secretary of state…"
Section 9 provides: "(1) In any proceedings before any court … no evidence shall be adduced and no question in cross-examination shall be asked which … tends to suggest (a) that an offence under section 1 above had been … committed by any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) below; or (b) that a warrant has been … issued to any of those persons.
"(2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) above are (a) any person holding office under the Crown…"
Mr John Roberts, QC, for Effik and Mr Thomas Buxton for Mitchell, both assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals; Mr Simon A R Smith for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE STEYN said that one of the classes of evidence on which the prosecution case was based was the evidence of telephone calls listened into and taped by the police between the appellants and a third party who used a cordless telephone.
The prosecution had informed the judge that no warrant for an interception had been granted.
The judge rightly held that there had been an interception within the meaning of section 1 and that it had been undertaken by persons holding office under the Crown, within section 9(2)(a).
There was surprisingly no evidence before the crown court as to whether the particular cordless telephone had been designated, under section 9(1) of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General's Reference (No 5 of 2002)
...were decided while section 9 of the 1985 Act was still in force. In chronological order they are R v Ahmed, unreported, 29 March 1994, R v Effik [1995] 1 AC 309, Morgans v DPP [2001] 1 AC 315 and R v Allan, Bunting and Boodhoo [2001] EWCA Crim 1025/6, which was decided on 6 April 49 It is ......
- Maycock v Attorney General and Another; and related appeals
- R v Khan (Sultan)
-
R v Ian Michael Sargent
...into the person's activities at the time of the intercept could be conducted without entering into what was described in by Steyn LJ in R v Effik (1992) 95 CrAppR 427, 432 as the "forbidden territory." Section 9(1)(a) provides that no evidence shall be adduced and no question asked in cros......
-
Admission of Telephone Intercepts
...him with gun arid spray. The court concludedthat the judge was correct in leaving the counts in the indictment.Commenting on RvEffik [1992] 95 Cr App R 427, Lord Steyn pointedoutthat s 9 of the 1985 Act doesnotforbid the adduction of evidence ofan offenceunders 1; it merely forbids the aski......
-
Admission of Telephone Intercepts
...him with gun arid spray. The court concludedthat the judge was correct in leaving the counts in the indictment.Commenting on RvEffik [1992] 95 Cr App R 427, Lord Steyn pointedoutthat s 9 of the 1985 Act doesnotforbid the adduction of evidence ofan offenceunders 1; it merely forbids the aski......
-
Telephone Intercept as Evidence
...In dismissingtheappeal sofar as it depended on submissions relating to this issue,thecourt reliedon the decision in RvEffik [1992J 95 Cr App R 427 (notwithstanding theconfusion which that case has aroused among commentators) and RvOwen, in which judgment had just been given in the Court of ......
-
Telephone Intercept as Evidence
...In dismissingtheappeal sofar as it depended on submissions relating to this issue,thecourt reliedon the decision in RvEffik [1992J 95 Cr App R 427 (notwithstanding theconfusion which that case has aroused among commentators) and RvOwen, in which judgment had just been given in the Court of ......