“Hmm. Do you know what I was thinking of doing, Mike? I know people…You know that we was talking about… You know how Carlos (said to refer to Wolf) what we’re getting has been chu chu (alleged to mean cocaine) the majority of it”
“Whilst it may not be fair to do so in other cases in the context of this case, I have carried out a full review of the material, as I am obliged to do under the provisions of the 1996 Act. I am satisfied that there is no material that undermines the prosecution case or assists the defence. That being so, I can see no unfairness to the defendants in admitting the evidence. Mr Knox can cross examine upon the materials he has, he can ask officers who were listening in questions in order to test the evidence and it’s context…he has sufficient material at his disposal to cross examine as to the weight to be attached to such evidence. Mr Hadrill has the material to conduct a similar exercise if he so wishes.”
“We have reached the clear conclusion that … there was no interception of the communication within the meaning of section 1(1) of the 1985 Act. As we understand it, the listening device simply heard and recorded what Harris said into his phone. There was thus no interception of an electrical impulse or signal passing through the public telecommunication system. The situation was in essence the same as it would have been if the conversations had been heard by a policeman, say, hiding in the boot or standing on the pavement. In these circumstances an appeal on this ground could not, in our view succeed. Mr Davies submits that this is too narrow a view of the section and that we should give it a purposive construction having regard tosection 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 andArticle 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights . However, the conclusion which we have reached does not seem to us to be inconsistent with the policy or purpose of the 1985 Act and, in our judgment, it should be construed in accordance with its terms but having regard to its purpose. Moreover, we can see nothing unfair in permitting the Crown to rely upon what Harris said on the phone. In short, there was no reason to exclude the evidence under section 78 of PACE and no basis for holding that Beard did not receive a fair trial in accordance withArticle 6 of the Convention ”
“5. All that is necessary to say about the facts is this. In the course of an investigation into suspected drugs dealing on a substantial scale and as part of quite extensive observation procedures the police obtained permission under thePolice Act 1997 and RIPA to place a listening device in the accused’s car .it provided recordings of words spoken in the car over two periods, one of about four weeks and the second about four days. 6… 7.The words spoken and recorded included the following. First, words spoken by the accused to other people who joined him in the car. Second, words spoken by those other people to him. Third, words spoken by the accused when in the car and using a mobile telephone. The device recorded the accused’s end of any such telephone conversations. It did not pick up any speech from whoever it was to whom the accused was speaking. Quite a substantial part of the total speech recorded in the car consisted of the accused speaking into his mobile telephone. It may be that it was approaching or as much as half of the total recorded material. 8. It is the fact that this third category of speech was recorded by the listening device, which gives rise to the argument mounted on behalf of the accused, that all the evidence of the product of the device is inadmissible.”
“The critical words are “in the course of transmission”, which, it will be seen, appear also in the offence-creating section, section 1(1). One should note also the use of the expression “whilst being transmitted” in both section 2(2) and 2(8). 20. In our view, the natural meaning of the expression “interception” denotes some inference (interference) or abstraction of the signal, whether it is passing along wires or by wireless telegraphy, during the process of transmission. The recording of a person’s voice, independently of the fact that at the time he is using a telephone, does not become interception simply because what he says goes not only go (sic) into the recorder, but, by separate process, is transmitted by a telecommunications system. That view is consistent with the expressions contained in the Act to which we have drawn attention. 21. Interception, moreover, as section 2(2) closely defines it, is concerned with what happens in the course of transmission by “a telecommunications system”
“The use of a surveillance device should not be ruled out simply because it may incidentally pick up one or both ends of a telephone conversation, and any such product can be treated as having been lawfully obtained. However, its use would not be appropriate where the sole purpose is to overhear speech, which at the time of monitoring is being transmitted by a telecommunications system”