Perhaps the single most controversial issue to hit the media this year is phone hacking, because it involved celebrities and politicians and directly led to the closure of Britain's biggest selling Sunday newspaper, The News of the World.
Somewhat less publicised is the near certainty that this practice is also used, from time to time, on the man (or woman) in the street. Typical examples might be bosses checking on employees with poor sickness records, husbands or wives suspicious that their spouses are having an affair, or people being just plain nosey about a relative, friend, or work colleague.
However, whether hacking is widespread or used only in exceptional circumstances, the law applies as much to the ordinary citizen as it does to the great and the good. It is unlawful for a person to intercept any telephone call though a landline or a call or text message through a mobile network, as indeed it is through an email or other message sent though the internet.
Anyone who has had their phone calls tapped and e-mails intercepted has potentially suffered a very severe intrusion into their privacy. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is enforced by the Human Rights Act, guarantees people's right to privacy, and also expressly protects their right to respect for their correspondence, which can include telecommunications. For this reason the law strictly regulates the circumstances in which your post or telecommunications can be intercepted or monitored. Thus, an interception not done in accordance with the law and which cannot be justified as being necessary and proportionate for a legitimate aim, is likely to constitute a breach of your human rights.
The exception is tapping by appropriate authorities - for example, Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service, Police, or Customs - under authorisation of the Home Secretary. Such authorisation is provided by way of an interception warrant. These warrants can only be issued if the Home Secretary believes that it is necessary for a reason relating to national security, serious crime or the economic well-being of the UK, and it is proportionate in the circumstances.
Any hacking perpetrator can be subject to a criminal prosecution, although whether or not the authorities prosecute in itself does not prevent a "victim" from seeking compensation.
While the law is complex, complaints about improper interception can in certain circumstances be heard by a special tribunal set up by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which has the power to order compensation, as well as the destruction of the recorded material.
The tribunal is open to any individual who believes their privacy has been unlawfully interfered with, although the tribunal members are likely to give short shrift to what they consider frivolous claims. For this reason anyone considering taking such a case to a tribunal would be advised to consult a solicitor initially for advice on the validity of any claim, although anyone is at liberty or represent him or herself should they so wish.
When a tribunal rules in favour of a complainant, the level of compensation will depend on how serious the breach of privacy is judged to have been. If the adverse effect is deemed to have been minor, then any compensation will probably be minimal but larger sums could be awarded if phone hacking turned out to have serious consequences (for the victim), such as the loss of a job, nervous breakdown or similar personal disaster.
However, even in more serious cases, claimants should not anticipate being awarded what used to be called a "pools win". It is wise to take with a pinch of salt many of the apparently huge payouts reported in the media, although for someone on a limited budget the level of an award may be considered substantial.
The law, of course, is not confined to digital or electronic communications: it is also an offence to intercept mail if someone, without authorisation, intentionally intercepts letters or parcels sent to you through the Royal Mail or other recognised carrier.
Phone hacking comes under the general realm of "privacy laws", and another way in which privacy can be intruded on is the abusive phone call. Under the Communications Act 2003, it is a criminal offence to leave messages which are grossly offensive, or to make obscene or menacing telephone calls or calls which cause annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety.
The criminal courts may treat a letter, or a silent or abusive phone call as an assault if it causes the victim to fear that physical violence may be used against him or her in the immediate future. There have been cases where serious psychological damage has resulted, in which case a claim for damages can be made, although obviously there is little point in doing so unless the perpetrator is sufficiently wealthy to make that worthwhile.
Telephone companies have the power, in certain circumstances, to trace the makers of nuisance or malicious calls and tell you who they are, provided you have a legitimate interest in knowing their identity. If the perpetrator is known and is persistent in making calls the courts are increasingly willing to make orders to prevent this type of harassment.
Need specialist Edinburgh Solicitors? McKay Norwell are Edinburgh Lawyers serving individual and business clients across Scotland.
View the original article here
