An appeal concerning the admissibility in criminal proceedings in the UK of evidence gained from foreign telephone intercepts and the effect of Art.6 (fair trial) and Art.8 (private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights. The appellants were charged with three counts of smuggling Class A drugs into the UK. The authorities in country A involved had suspected one of the appellants to be involved in drug trafficking and had lawfully obtained from an examining magistrate an order authorising the interception of X’s telephone calls. The intercepts form country A had resulted in recordings of conversations between X and each appellant. Some had been made from country A to the UK, some vice versa, some when both parties had been in England or country A. In all cases the intercepts had been made in accordance with the law of that country.

The appellants had appealed against the decision (Times, May 23, 2000) that evidence of intercepted telephone conversations that had been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction was admissible and should not be excluded under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s. 78 . The Interception of Communications Act 1985 had been found to be inapplicable on the ground that it only related to interceptions within the UK. The House of Lords held the use of foreign telephone intercepts lawfully made and dealt with according to the law of the country or countries concerned, was in principle and as a matter of policy properly to be regarded as necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of serious crime.