header-logo header-logo

25 February 2021 / Evan Wright , Sarah Vine
Issue: 7922 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Procedure & practice , Technology
printer mail-detail

Intercept evidence in criminal proceedings

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll