Privy Council Review of intercept as evidence: report - Official ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Security Service Serious and Organised Crime Agency Serious Fraud Office Professor John Spencer QC Vodafone plc And from the governments of the following countries: Australia Canada Germany Republic of Ireland New Zealand Spain Sweden Annex C 56
ANNEX D – BIBLIOGRAPHY Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Chapter 23) Interception of Communications: Code of Practice (TSO, 2002) Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Review: Report (the Newton Report) (HC100, 18 December 2003) JUSTICE Intercept Evidence: Lifting the Ban (October 2006) Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner for 2005-2006 (HC 315, 19 February 2007) Evidence for Change – Lifting the ban on intercept evidence in court (Democratic Audit, March 2007) Lord Lloyd of Berwick Speech 16 March 2007 introducing the Interception of Communications (Admissibility of Evidence) Bill (HL Debates Vol 690 Part 60) Joint Committee on Human Rights Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 28 days, intercept and post-charge questioning (HL Paper 157 / HC 394, 16 July 2007) Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights: 28 days, intercept and postcharge questioning (Cm 7215, September 2007) JUSTICE From Arrest to Charge in 48 Hours: Complex terrorism cases in the US since 9/11 (November 2007) Annex D 57
Page 1 and 2:
PRIVY COUNCIL REVIEW OF INTERCEPT A
Page 3 and 4:
Crown Copyright 2008 The text in th
Page 5 and 6:
PRIVY COUNCIL REVIEW OF INTERCEPT A
Page 7 and 8: public, as at least key parts of it
Page 9 and 10: written submissions received. It al
Page 11 and 12: are included in a schedule, which c
Page 13 and 14: independent facilities, however the
Page 15 and 16: - often in real time - and those co
Page 17 and 18: CHAPTER III - POTENTIAL USE AND BEN
Page 19 and 20: sensitivity or the risk to other, m
Page 21 and 22: 66. The existence of an official ca
Page 23 and 24: 81. We have been told that the use
Page 25 and 26: intercept as evidence would bring.
Page 27 and 28: CHAPTER V - RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS I
Page 29 and 30: CHAPTER VI - NEW COMMUNICATIONS TEC
Page 31 and 32: telephone is being set up, any part
Page 33 and 34: CHAPTER VII - RELEVANCE OF EXPERIEN
Page 35 and 36: security service 9 ). Intercept app
Page 37 and 38: 149. Spain provides another example
Page 39 and 40: 159. Although over 90% of offences
Page 41 and 42: Procedures Act 1980 (CIPA). This al
Page 43 and 44: 182. However, even with these examp
Page 45 and 46: o any ‘exculpatory material’ -
Page 47 and 48: decide whether disclosure was neede
Page 49 and 50: evidence, and the failure of that a
Page 51 and 52: The intercepting agency shall decid
Page 53 and 54: considered for cases in the civil c
Page 55 and 56: ANNEX B - LIST OF WITNESSES Attorne
Page 57: ANNEX C - LIST OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIO
Page 61 and 62: CSP Communications Service Provider
Page 63 and 64: Lawful Interception The interceptio
Page 65 and 66: SOCA Serious Organised Crime Agency
Page 67: Published by TSO (The Stationery Of
show all

Privy Council Review of intercept as evidence: report - Official ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?