4
MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
11.
On 27 February, in fulfilment of an undertaking given at the
hearing, the Government supplied copies of extracts from a document which
had been referred to in argument at the hearing. By letter received on 5
June, they notified the Registrar of an amendment to this document.
AS TO THE FACTS
I. PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
12. Mr. James Malone was born in 1937 and is resident in Dorking,
Surrey. In 1977, he was an antique dealer. It appears that he has since
ceased business as such.
13. On 22 March 1977, Mr. Malone was charged with a number of
offences relating to dishonest handling of stolen goods. His trial, which took
place in June and August 1978, resulted in his being acquitted on certain
counts and the jury disagreeing on the rest. He was retried on the remaining
charges between April and May 1979. Following a further failure by the
jury to agree, he was once more formally arraigned; the prosecution offered
no evidence and he was acquitted.
14.
During the first trial, it emerged that details of a telephone
conversation to which Mr. Malone had been a party prior to 22 March 1977
were contained in the note-book of the police officer in charge of the
investigations. Counsel for the prosecution then accepted that this
conversation had been intercepted on the authority of a warrant issued by
the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
15. In October 1978, the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the
Chancery Division of the High Court against the Metropolitan Police
Commissioner, seeking, inter alia, declarations to the effect that
interception, monitoring and recording of conversations on his telephone
lines without his consent was unlawful, even if done pursuant to a warrant
of the Secretary of State. The Solicitor General intervened in the
proceedings on behalf of the Secretary of State but without being made a
party. On 28 February 1979, the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Robert Megarry,
dismissed the applicant’s claim (Malone v. Commissioner of Police of the
Metropolis (No. 2), [1979] 2 All England Law Reports 620; also reported at
[1979] 2 Weekly Law Reports 700). An account of this judgment is set out
below (at paragraphs 31-36).
16. The applicant further believed that both his correspondence and his
telephone calls had been intercepted for a number of years. He based his
belief on delay to and signs of interference with his correspondence. In
particular, he produced to the Commission bundles of envelopes which had