The Interception of Communications Act 1985
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1986.tb01679.x |
| Date | 01 January 1986 |
| Published date | 01 January 1986 |
LEGISLATION
THE INTERCEPTION
OF
COMMUNICATIONS ACT 1985
IN common with many aspects of British governmental practice the
monitoring of its citizen’s communications, whether carried out by
the police or by the security forces, has traditionally been conducted
under conditions
of
considerable secrecy being governed by
somewhat obscure administrative regulations rather than by precise
legal controls.’ Criticism of the nebulous nature of this system has
periodically surfaced, normally in response to media publicity
concerning alleged abuses,* but it was only this year when two
distinct sources of pressure coalesced that a somewhat reluctant
government introduced the Bill which on July 25 became the
Interception of Communications Act.
BACKGROUND
TO
THE
ACT
The initial developments which were to lead to the Act’s passage
occurred in the rather mundane setting of Newington Causeway
Crown Court where a London antique dealer, Mr. James Malone,
stood arraigned on several counts
of
handling stolen property. In
the course of the trial a police witness requested permission to
consult his notebook. Defending counsel expressed a wish to
inspect this document and discovered therein reference to the fact
that a telephone conversation initiated by Malone had been
monitored by the police. It was subsequently confirmed by the
prosecuting counsel that this particular conversation had, indeed,
been intercepted under the authority of a warrant issued by the
Home Secretary. At the conclusion
of
the trial Malone was
acquitted on several counts with the jury failing to reach a verdict
on the remaining charges. Prior to his retrial he instituted civil
proceedings in the Chancery Division3 seeking a declaration that
the tapping of his telephone was illegal. After a lengthy hearing
the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Robert Megarry, dismissed the petition
finding himself compelled to agree with the contention of the
Solicitor General, appearing on behalf
of
the Home Secretary,
that:
“apart from certain limited statutory provisions, there was
nothing to make governmental phone tapping illegal; and the
*
For
a description
of
the previous controls
see
the report
of
the Birkett Committee
(Cmnd.
283).
*
For example, the controversial “Channel Four” documentary dealing with allegations
of
unauthorised telephone tapping carried out by members
of
MI5
and referred to
frequently during the Act’s parliamentary passage.
’
Malone
v.
Commissioner
of
Police
for
the Metropolis (Number
2)
[1979]
2
All
E.R.
bZU.
86
To continue reading
Request your trial