constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, the right of access to the courts and,
it is asserted, the right to private life:
"....the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront
what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be
overridden by general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too
great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified meaning may
have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of express
language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts must presume
that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic
rights of the individual."
13. It is submitted on behalf of the Complainant that, applying the principle of legality,
s3(l) of the 1985 Act should be read as limiting a warrant granted under it to conduct
which interferes with the common law privacy right only so far as it is proportionate.
14. It was made clear that the Complainant did not accept that the agencies had the
necessary authorisation of a warrant under the 1985 Act when interfering, if they did,
with his right of privacy. It was submitted that, if investigation revealed that there was
such interference and that there was no warrant under the 1985 Act, the Complainant
was entitled to succeed by reason of breach of the claimed right of privacy of
communications and that reliance on the application of the principle of legality for the
interpretation of legislation was unnecessary.
15. The issue whether there was at common law a relevant fundamental or basic right to
privacy available in public law against public authorities is specially relevant to
complaints of conduct pre-2 October 2000, which it is agreed cannot be challenged on
Convention and HRA grounds.