CRIMINAL

Confession obtained by use of unlawful telephone intercept - employees acting outside scope of authority 'person engaged in the running of a public telecommunication system' - evidence of intercept and contents inadmissibleR v Sargent: HL (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough): 25 October 2001P worked for a telecommuni-cations operator.

Suspecting that his ex-wife C and the defendant might have had something to do with the burning of his car, he without authority and contrary to section1(1) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 intercepted and recorded a conversation between them and gave the recording and a transcript to the police.At interview, the defendant, on hearing of the intercept, made admissions.

He was charged with conspiracy to commit arson.

At his trial, the jury was told what he had said at interview and the recording and transcript were put in as evidence.

The jury convicted the defendant, whose appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

He appealed.Ben Emmerson QC, John McClure and Daniel Friedman (instructed by Widdows Pilling & Co, Walkden) for the defendant.

Bruce Houlder QC and David Perry (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, London Division, Casework Directorate) for the Crown.Held, allowing the appeal, that a person was 'engaged in the running of a public telecommunication system' if he was at the relevant time an employee or other agent of the operator, whether or not he was acting within the scope of his authority; that, accordingly, P fell within section 9(2)(c) of the 1985 Act and under section 9(1) evidence of the intercept and its contents had been inadmissible; and that, since without it the jury would not inevitably have convicted the defendant, his conviction was unsafe.

(WLR)