header-logo header-logo

Intercept evidence in criminal proceedings

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll