[2002] EWCA Crim 772

When admitting further evidence beyond a document or utterance of a conspirator to prove that another was a party to the agreement, it was sufficient that the admissible evidence was for the common purpose of the supply of illegal drugs. It was not necessary for that evidence to specify the particular drug. A listening device installed in a car, which simply heard and recorded what the occupant said into his phone, was not an interception of a communication within the meaning of s.1(1) Interception of Communications Act 1985.

CA (Crim Div) (Clarke LJ, Leveson J, Cooke J)


0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar