Page 154 - Deception at work all chapters EBook

Planning Investigations and Legal Background for Tough Interviews 155

Table 5.3 The decisions in relation to Article 8

Alleged Provisions of the Article Finding of the court
breach of
Comments on the Halford judgement comments

Article 8(1) ‘Everyone has the right to respect Paragraph 1
for his private and family life, his Telephone calls from business premises
home and his correspondence’ may be covered by notions of ‘private life’
Note that in paragraph 1 the court and ‘correspondence’ – the applicant had a
uses the word ‘may’ when dealing reasonable expectation of privacy
with the general position. Conclusion: Unanimously agreed
In paragraph 42, the court is dealing Paragraph 42
with the specifics of the Halford case The applicant argued and the commission
in which: agreed that conversations made on the
One telephone had been specifically telephones in Ms Halford’s office at Merseyside
designated for her private use Police Headquarters fell within the scope of
(paragraph 44) ‘private life’ and ‘correspondence’ since the
She had been specifically assured court in its case law had adopted a broad
she could use the telephones for the construction of these expressions.
purposes of her sex discrimination Paragraph 44
case For all of the above reasons the court concludes
She was given no warning that her that the telephone calls made by Ms Halford
telephones might be intercepted fell within the scope of ‘private life’

Article 8(2) ‘There shall be no interference by a Paragraph 48
public authority with the exercise (… The interception had) the primary aim of
of this right, except such as in gathering material to assist in the defence of the
accordance with the law and is sex-discrimination proceedings. This constituted
necessary in a democratic society an ‘interference by a public authority’
in the interests of national security, Paragraph 49
public safety or the economic Interference by a ‘public authority’ must be
well being of the country, for the in accordance with the law. Such interference
prevention of disorder or crime, for was not in accordance with the law since the
the protection of health or morals, domestic law did not provide any regulation of
or for the rights and freedoms of calls on telecommunications systems outside
others’ the public network

Mainly as a result of the Halford case, panic set in. The UK Government had to pass laws so
that interception of private networks by public authorities could be made ‘lawful’. Members of
the sandal-wearing class put forward the view that companies could no longer intercept inter-
nal communications systems for any purpose. OFTEL, the British telecoms regulator, put out
‘guidelines’ that were, by any measure, incredible. These stated that company telephone and
communication lines could never be intercepted; that all employers had to provide separate
communications facilities (for both voice and data) on which confidentiality was guaranteed,
etc, etc. You can just imagine the smelly socks wetting their knickers with excitement at the
idea that companies must provide secure lines so that their employees can download porn
from the Internet in total confidence!

Fortunately the guidelines were ignored as being excessively Mandarinesque. Their ap-
pearance does, however, highlight the tendency of bureaucrats to apply their own liberal
aspirations to interpretations of the law and there are plenty of example of this, especially
involving the Data Protection Act (see page [xref])