MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
5
been delivered to him either sealed with an adhesive tape of an identical
kind or in an unsealed state. As to his telephone communications, he stated
that he had heard unusual noises on his telephone and alleged that the police
had at times been in possession of information which they could only have
obtained by telephone tapping. He thought that such measures had
continued since his acquittal on the charges against him.
It was admitted by the Government that the single conversation about
which evidence emerged at the applicant’s trial had been intercepted on
behalf of the police pursuant to a warrant issued under the hand of the
Secretary of State for the prevention and detection of crime. According to
the Government, this interception was carried out in full conformity with
the law and the relevant procedures. No disclosure was made either at the
trial of the applicant or during the course of the applicant’s proceedings
against the Commissioner of Police as to whether the applicant’s own
telephone number had been tapped or as to whether other and, if so, what
other, telephone conversations to which the applicant was a party had been
intercepted. The primary reasons given for withholding this information
were that disclosure would or might frustrate the purpose of telephone
interceptions and might also serve to identify other sources of police
information, particularly police informants, and thereby place in jeopardy
the source in question. For similar reasons, the Government declined to
disclose before the Commission or the Court to what extent, if at all, the
applicant’s telephone calls and correspondence had been intercepted on
behalf of the police authorities. It was however denied that the resealing
with adhesive tape or the delivery unsealed of the envelopes produced to the
Commission was attributable directly or indirectly to any interception. The
Government conceded that, as the applicant was at the material time
suspected by the police of being concerned in the receiving of stolen
property and in particular of stolen antiques, he was one of a class of
persons against whom measures of interception were liable to be employed.
17.
In addition, Mr. Malone believed that his telephone had been
"metered" on behalf of the police by a device which automatically records
all numbers dialled. As evidence for this belief, he asserted that when he
was charged in March 1977 the premises of about twenty people whom he
had recently telephoned were searched by the police. The Government
affirmed that the police had neither caused the applicant’s telephone calls to
be metered nor undertaken the alleged or any search operations on the basis
of any list of numbers obtained from metering.
18. In September 1978, the applicant requested the Post Office and the
complaints department of the police to remove suspected listening devices
from his telephone. The Post Office and the police both replied that they had
no authority in the matter.