Phone Taps in a legal case??

Yas786

Yas786

Yas786

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
48,795
Location
All over the world...
Right just a quick question really, something that me and a mate were discussing earlier today.

Now hes adamant that in a legal case ie someone suing someone for damages can legally get say a private investigator to tap someones phones and use that evidence to track a person down.

Im of the opinion that no u cant as you would need the other persons permission before using that evidence....

So whos right and whos wrong??.
 
Standard IANAL disclaimer.

In the UK, it would generally be inadmissable. Even the police have to jump through a load of legal hoops to get such evidence accepted.
 
Dolph said:
Standard IANAL disclaimer.

In the UK, it would generally be inadmissable. Even the police have to jump through a load of legal hoops to get such evidence accepted.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, it's a complex area. My first point would be that the rules that apply aren't entirely consistent across the UK. Some of the legislation is UK legislation, but Scotland has some variations.

The second point is that the whole area of phones taps is a minefield of contradictory and unclear law. There are rights for the authorities to tap phones, provided they go through the necessary procedures, but there are certainly also cases where evidence has been produced in court despite procedural problems and that stance upheld by the Court of Appeal. So how does a Court weigh the authority's rights under RIP to intercept (with authorisation) against the individual's expectation to privacy under the ECHR? There's a conflict.

As for private individuals tapping someone else's phone, I would say it is categorically a breach of licence condition which, arguably, is a criminal offence (though arguably it isn't, but a civil matter), but I can't see how it possibly isn't a criminal offence under the Interception of Communications Act. That, basically, makes it a criminal offence to tap someones phone unless you fall into one of the specified exemptions and a private investigator wouldn't, unless he could somehow convince a court that he believed the person being tapped had consented to it. Unlikely, I'd have thought. :D

So, there are two questions :-

1) Would evidence obtained this way be admitted. Answer .... maybe. It's complex.

2) Would the investiagor be opening himself to criminal prosecution if he did this. Almost certainly, yes.
 
Wiretaps from another jurisdiction may be admitted though in court, although they are generally not admitted(certainly not from a PI I'd have thought) in at least one case wiretaps conducted in America were admitted in a UK court although they would have been illegal if done in the UK.
 
Phone taps in criminal cases are generally inadmissable and the legal loopholes to try and get such authorisation are complicated to say the least. You have both the HRA and RIPA Acts to consider before you start. These are criminal cases I talk about and remember also that there is controversy that the Government wishes to use phone tap evidence for terrorism cases and that is proving a mightmare for them also. I would say that IF such taps were authorised then it would be in truly exceptional circumstances and the scenario you mention would not, I believe, fall into that bracket.

In a nutshell, if criminal and terror cases cannot use phone tap evidence, then a PI trying to track someone using phone taps would not get off the ground at all and the private dick in question would be wide open to legal action.
 
^ I was going to say that there's very little that is inadmissable in UK court, providing the evidence is relevent.
 
daz said:
^ I was going to say that there's very little that is inadmissable in UK court, providing the evidence is relevent.
Click to expand...

Thats the grey area though Daz ... what is deemed relevant for phone taps to be admitted ?

To track a person so they can be sued for damages would not be I would say.
 
You have to get the prior permission of the other party to record a phone call with yourself before it can be admitted in court, let alone tap their conversations with others!
 
Vertigo1 said:
You have to get the prior permission of the other party to record a phone call with yourself before it can be admitted in court, let alone tap their conversations with others!
Click to expand...
Not true. How much use would a warrant be to the police if they then had to tell the person they were tapping that they were recording. However, as a phone user you are operating under a general licence (Self Provision Licence) and would certainly be breaching that licence if you recorded another party without taking reasonable steps to let them know they were being recorded. But note, "reasonable steps" is not the same as "be absolutely sure". It is not clear whether breaching licence conditions is actually a criminal offence or not, though. I guess we'll find out if and when a court rules on it.

sativa said:
Inadmissible and the private investigator is also committing a criminal offence.
Click to expand...
The legality of the method used to obtain evidence doesn't necessarily preclude it's admissibility though. Illegal methods used to obtain the evidence might lead to either criminal prosecution for doing it, or a civil case for damages, but don't necessarily preclude the evidence being admissible. There's no simple answers to that - much will often depend on the probative value of the evidence, compared to the prejudicial value, though the Criminal Justice Act 2003 monkeyed around with a lot of previously accepted principles of admissibility. I'm talking about general principle here, not the specific circumstances Spawn asked about. The UK doesn't use the same 'fruit of the poisoned tree' principle that is so prevalent in the US, and evidence discovered in, for example, an illegal search may well still be admissible even if it wouldn't be in the US.
 
Ok the main reason why i asked this question is because the other day a private investigator turned up at my door looking for my dad. Now my dad doesnt live at the house that me and my mum live at but his name is on the mortgage deeds although he has no interest in the house whatsoever, we even have a letter from his solicitors saying that.
Basically quite a few yrs ago in Canada before we came back here, he was being sued by someone for damages etc. Someone bought my dad and his partners company and made some massive losses and blamed my dad and his partner for these losses...said the books were dodgy etc etc when my dads partner was and is a certified accountant...something about misappropriation of funds etc. First time the case was thrown out but the guy appealed and won but by that time we had already settled in the UK. So this fella went after my dads partner and literally ruined him, left him bankrupt and seized all his assets etc.
So basically a long story short is that this guy is now after my dad and his assets and because his name is on the mortgage deeds they want half the house or his share. Which basically means i cannot sell the house till this is sorted out as im not willing to lose half my house etc. He has put a restriction on the house via the land registry and courts. My mum now has to go to court on 24 feb and prove to the judge that my dad has no interest in the house etc and get this damn restriction taken off.

Now i maybe paranoid but now and again my dad does ring me on the phone and i have seen him a few times in the past yr or so. So because these private investigators are getting paid quite a bit of money, its within their interests to find my dad through any possible means etc. So im just kinda worried that he may be tapping our phones without our consent etc and this may be in turn used against us in court.

So thats basically the story, dont want to go into too much detail tbh but its a very worrying time for me and my mum and shes under a lot of stress and tbh its the last thing i need to worry about really.

But thanks for the answers, i dont think he is tapping our phones but we cant be 100% sure that he isnt and therefore we no longer talk on the home phone about this case etc.
 
Well, whether tapping is illegal or not, I certainly wouldn't suggest it might not happen. To do so would be incredibly naive.

Whether such information could be used in court may be besides the point though, because from that post, Spawn, it seems to me that these guys first objective is to simply find your dad and a tap may help achieve that. But in those circumstances, I'd be shocked to find an illegal tap could be used against you or your mum in court.

The best bet, though, is to get formal legal advice. The closest this thread has come may well be Sativa's comments.
 
Sequoia said:
Well, whether tapping is illegal or not, I certainly wouldn't suggest it might not happen. To do so would be incredibly naive.

Whether such information could be used in court may be besides the point though, because from that post, Spawn, it seems to me that these guys first objective is to simply find your dad and a tap may help achieve that. But in those circumstances, I'd be shocked to find an illegal tap could be used against you or your mum in court.

The best bet, though, is to get formal legal advice. The closest this thread has come may well be Sativa's comments.
Click to expand...


Indeed and once again thank you mate for your info, we do have a lawyer who has taken the case for us. Im meeting with him on monday to discuss the ramifications of all this and see where it stands with us on a legal standpoint.
But we are being extra careful now with regards to telephone conversations etc etc. Better to be safe than sorry i guess:)
 
Sequoia said:
Not true. How much use would a warrant be to the police if they then had to tell the person they were tapping that they were recording.
Click to expand...
Obviously, if a warrant were issued, then this would negate the need to inform the other or third party of the recording.

I was speaking in the context of the original question, i.e. that of a private investigator tapping a call. In this situation the investigator would have no warrant to enforce the tap and thus would be on the same legal ground as any other member of the public who took it upon themselves to record such a conversation, i.e. it would not be admissible in court.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Obviously, if a warrant were issued, then this would negate the need to inform the other or third party of the recording.

I was speaking in the context of the original question, i.e. that of a private investigator tapping a call. In this situation the investigator would have no warrant to enforce the tap and thus would be on the same legal ground as any other member of the public who took it upon themselves to record such a conversation, i.e. it would not be admissible in court.
Click to expand...
Understood, but (without a warrant) the need to inform the other party that the call is being made is a licence condition of the licence granted under the Telecomms Act. Legal opinion varies as to whether breaking that licence is a criminal act or not, and even then, rules of admission don't depend solely on the evidence being obtained legally (though the situation is much closed to that in the US).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the rules of admissibility are quite complex in and of themselves, and the interpretation of them even more so. There are certainly some fairly clear basic principles, and even more so since the CJA 2003, but it's still an area that causes much legal debate (and differences of opinion), even among judges. Accordingly, I think it's very hard to give a categoric answer as to admissibility in the general. In Spawn's case, personally, I'm inclined to agree with Sativa and you, ...... but I'm no legal expert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom