header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
25 February 2021 / Evan Wright , Sarah Vine
Issue: 7922 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Procedure & practice , Technology
printer mail-detail

Intercept evidence in criminal proceedings

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
40736
Is evidence obtained from secret messaging apps admissible in criminal proceedings? Evan Wright & Sarah Vine examine the Court of Appeal’s decision
  • The Court of Appeal recently considered whether material obtained from EncroChat was ‘intercept material’ and inadmissible in criminal proceedings under section 56 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
  • The critical issue was the construction of s 4(4) of the 2016 Act: were the messages ‘stored in or by’ the telecommunications system by which they were transmitted, or were they ‘being transmitted’ at that point?

Messages exchanged through the EncroChat messaging app between handsets were designed to be end-to-end encrypted. In effect, the app provided secret communications. The company also developed a type of Android operating system, and smartphones commonly referred to as ‘carbon units’ for the purposes of exchanging the encrypted messages.

In June 2020, the company warned that the handsets had been compromised. French and Dutch police experts managed to place a piece of malware (disguised as an ‘update’) on all of the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll