Year: 1994
Type: article
Abstract: As is well known, the Interception of Communications Act was passed in 1985 in response to the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the Mulone case.'The Act has been widely criticised in both legal and political circles.2Before now the concerns have focused on three main aspects of the Act: first, the grounds on which warrants authorising interception may be granted, which appear to be broader than under the previously stated practice3; secondly, the fact that warrants are granted by the Secretary of State rather than by a judge or magistrate4; and thirdly, the comparatively weak and limited powers enjoyed by the Tribunal and Commissioner established under ss 7 and 8 of the Most of the initial concerns thus related to the process by which interception may take place, and the limited grounds of appeal and redress.By comparison, very little has been written about the question of what happens to material obtained through a phone tap and, in particular, when evidence arising out of such material may be admissible in court.This note examines recent case law on this aspect of the Interception of Communications Act, comparing the present position in English *School of Law, King's College London. 1 would like to thank my colleagues
Source: Modern Law Review
Author: Adam Tomkins
Institution: King's College London
Language: English
Topic: Criminal Law and Evidence
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W2093600550