MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
23
(ii) If a complainant were able to establish merely that the police or the
Secretary of State had misappreciated the facts or that there was not an
adequate case for imposing an interception, the individual concerned would
be able to complain directly to the Secretary of State himself or through his
Member of Parliament: if a complainant were to give the Home Secretary
information which suggested that the grounds on which a warrant had been
issued did not in fact fall within the published criteria or were inadequate or
mistaken, the Home Secretary would immediately cause it to be investigated
and, if the complaint were found to be justified, would immediately cancel
the warrant.
(iii) Similarly, if there were non-compliance with any of the relevant
administrative rules of procedure set out in the Birkett report and the White
Paper, a remedy would lie through complaint to the Secretary of State who
would, in a proper case, cancel or revoke a warrant and thereby terminate an
interception which was being improperly carried out.
According to the Government, in practice there never has been a case
where a complaint in any of the three above circumstances has proved to be
well-founded.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
59. In his application of 19 July 1979 to the Commission (no. 8691/79),
Mr. Malone complained of the admitted interception of a telephone
conversation to which he had been a party. He further stated his belief that,
at the behest of the police, his correspondence as well as that of his wife had
been intercepted, his telephone lines "tapped" and, in addition, his telephone
"metered" by a device recording all the numbers dialled. He claimed that by
reason of these matters, and of relevant law and practice in England and
Wales, he had been the victim of breaches of Articles 8 and 13 (art. 8, art.
13) of the Convention.
60. The Commission declared the application admissible on 13 July
1981.
In its report adopted on 17 December 1982 (Article 31) (art. 31), the
Commission expressed the opinion:
- that there had been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 8
(art. 8) by reason of the admitted interception of a telephone conversation to
which he was a party and of the law and practice in England and Wales
governing the interception of postal and telephone communications on
behalf of the police (eleven votes, with one abstention);
- that it was unnecessary in the circumstances of the case to investigate
whether the applicant’s rights had also been interfered with by the