Morgans v. Director of Public Prosecutions

The House of Lords held that, read in the context of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 as a whole (in particular sections 2 and 6), section 9(1) of that Act must be construed as prohibiting the adducing in proceedings of the contents of communications intercepted by persons within the categories listed in section 9(2) except where an interception falls within section 1(3) or the proceedings are for a "relevant offence" or before the tribunal under section 7. The court concluded that evidence obtained by means of the Monolog devices was the product of communications within section 1(1) and therefore inadmissible unless an exception applied.

In reaching this conclusion the House overruled the contrary approach in Reg v Effik and accepted the analysis in Reg v Preston that the statutory scheme — including safeguards for warranted interceptions — was intended to continue the existing practice of excluding intercepted material from evidential use except in limited circumstances.

Background and facts:

• The appellant was convicted at Bow Street Magistrates' Court of offences under section 42 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. The convictions were based on evidence obtained from call-logging devices ("Monolog") fitted to the appellant's BT line which recorded digits dialled both before and after connections.
• The Crown's case was that the Monolog printouts, when compared with company network printouts, showed the appellant's line had accessed Meridien systems and enabled free international calls; the appellant explained he had been using an 0800 route for discounted calls.

Procedural history:

• Conviction at Bow Street was followed by a Crown Court (Southwark) appeal which was dismissed.
• A case stated to the Divisional Court produced [1999] 1 WLR 968: the Divisional Court allowed the appellant's appeal on the Computer Misuse Act charges (those convictions arose from time limits) but dismissed the challenge to the Telecommunications Act convictions. The case then proceeded to the House of Lords.

Nature of the claim and issues:

• (i) The appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained by interception under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, principally whether section 9(1) barred adducing such evidence where no warrant under section 2 had been issued and section 1(3) did not apply.
• (ii) The Court also had to determine whether the material produced by the Monolog devices was "communication" within section 1(1).

Court's reasoning:

• The House held the Monolog material was a communication for the purposes of section 1(1); dialled signals after connection amounted to signals transmitted through a public telecommunication system.
• On statutory construction, and having regard to the purpose and background of the 1985 Act and to the safeguards provided by sections 2 and 6 for warranted intercepts, section 9(1) should be read as preventing the adducing of intercepted content in proceedings except in the narrowly specified exceptions (section 1(3), relevant offences, or tribunal proceedings). This reading avoids the anomaly of permitting evidential use of material obtained without statutory safeguards and preserves the integrity of the statutory regime.
• The House therefore treated Reg v Effik as overruled by Reg v Preston and disapproved subsequent Court of Appeal decisions to the contrary (Reg v Rasool, Reg v Owen).

Relief sought:

• The appellant sought to exclude the Monolog-derived evidence under section 9(1) of the 1985 Act; the House allowed the appeal in respect of the admissibility point and concluded such material is, in general, inadmissible.

Appeal allowed. The House held that material obtained by interception of communications by persons within section 9(2) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 is, in general, inadmissible in proceedings unless the interception falls within the section 1(3) exceptions or the proceedings are for a 'relevant offence' or before the tribunal; the Monolog output amounted to communications within section 1(1). The decision in Reg v Effik was treated as overruled by Reg v Preston and related Court of Appeal authorities were disapproved.

Conviction at Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate; appeal to Crown Court at Southwark dismissed; case stated to the Divisional Court leading to [1999] 1 WLR 968 (Divisional Court allowed appeal on Computer Misuse Act counts but dismissed challenge to Telecommunications Act convictions); appeal to House of Lords resulting in [2000] UKHL 9 (this judgment).