Malone v United Kingdom [1984] ECHR 10
Court: High Court
Facts: Malone (M) was charged with handling stolen property. During his Crown Court prosecution, the prosecution admitted that the Post Office (P) had intercepted M’s telephone conversations under the authority of the Secretary of State, which were then used by the police. M sought declarations against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (D), claiming that this conduct was unlawful. He also sought an injunction to prevent further interceptions of his telephone conversations. The issue was whether the telephone tapping conducted by P, which involved recording conversations from wires connected to the subscriber's premises but not physically located on them, was unlawful under English law.
Issue: Was the Post Office's telephone tapping, authorized by the Secretary of State and used by the police, unlawful under English law?
Held: The court found that there was no general right to privacy in English law, and no property right existed in words transmitted over a telephone, except under copyright law. The Post Office was not contractually bound to confidentiality, and no unlawful conduct could be established since there was no law preventing the Post Office from tapping telephones by recording from wires not on the subscriber’s premises. Furthermore, the defendant (D) had not personally intercepted the conversations; it was the Post Office that had done so. M’s claim for a declaration was refused.
Key Judicial Statements: The court determined that "there was no general right to privacy on the telephone in English law," and it emphasized that "no law exists prohibiting the Post Office from recording conversations through wires not on the subscriber’s premises."
💡 LevelUpLaw: This case highlights the absence of a legally recognized right to privacy in English law at the time, particularly in relation to government-sanctioned surveillance. The decision revealed significant gaps in the law, ultimately leading to legislative reforms, including the introduction of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, which addressed issues related to phone tapping and privacy