RIPA and IOCA

[Q G Campbell]

Re. my previous response, the Explantory Notes to the Terrorism Act 2000
says of Schedule 3, Paragraph 8:

"This paragraph provides that section 9(1) of the Interception of
Communications Act 1985 (c.56), which bars intercept material evidence
from being used in proceedings, will not apply for POAC proceedings. It
goes on to stipulate that such material must not be disclosed to the
organisation or other applicant, or their legal representatives."


IANAL but I do not think that I misread IOCA s.9(1) as wrongly as that.
In order for others to make of it what they will I quote it below:

=20
[Evidence]
9(1) In any proceedings before any court or tribunal no evidence shall
be adduced and no question in cross-examination shall be asked which (in
either case) tends to suggest-

   (a) that an offence under section 1 above has been or is to be
       committed by any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2)
below,
       or
   (b) that a warrant has been or is to be issued to any of those
persons.

 (2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) above are-

   (a) any person holding office under the Crown;
   (b) the Post Office and any person engaged in the business of the
Post
       Office; and
   (c) any public telecommunications operator and any person engaged in
       the running of a public telecommunication system.


  =20
Quentin
--
PHONE: +44 191 222 8209    Computing Service, University of Newcastle
FAX:   +44 191 222 8765    Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, NE1 7RU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any opinions expressed above are mine. The University can get its own."
    =20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Q G Campbell [mailto:Q.G.Campbell@newcastle.ac.uk]
> Sent: 01 March 2001 12:50
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: RE: RIPA and IOCA
>=20
>=20
> Schedule 3 para 8 of the Terrorism Act refers to s.9(1) of=20
> IOCA which is
> a part repealed by Schedule 5 of RIPA as Matthew observes.
>=20
> IOCA s.9(1) is a curious sub-section which seems to prevent=20
> anyone from
> even hinting in any court or tribunal that any officer of the=20
> Crown, PO
> employee or telco employee has done anything naughty by way=20
> of making an
> illegal interception under IOCA.  =20
>=20
> The reference in the Terrorism Act 2000 referred to above lifts that
> restriction so that such evidence can now be put before The Proscribed
> Organizations Appeal Commission. To what purpose is unclear since the
> organisation or its representative who has lodged an appeal to the
> Commission is prevented from being told of this evidence.
>=20
>=20
> Quentin
> --
> PHONE: +44 191 222 8209    Computing Service, University of Newcastle
> FAX:   +44 191 222 8765    Newcastle upon Tyne, United=20
> Kingdom, NE1 7RU.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> "Any opinions expressed above are mine. The University can=20
> get its own."
>     =20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matthew Pemble [mailto:matthew@idrach.com]
> > Sent: 01 March 2001 12:12
> > To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> > Subject: Re: RIPA and IOCA
> >=20
> >=20
> > Schedule 3 para 8 of the Terrorism Act also refers to IOCA,
> > shouldn't this be a referal to somewhere in RIPA?  I thought that
> > although the Terrorism Act was earlier in the Parliamentary=20
> timetable,
> > RIPA came in to force first?
> >=20
> > www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--I.htm  (near the bottom)
> >=20
> > Matthew Pemble
> > Eur Ing CEng MIEE AIMgt
> >=20
> > Technical Director
> > Idrach Ltd
> >=20
> > Tel:	+ 44 (0) 7050 128620
> > Fax:	+ 44 (0) 1324 610367
> >=20
> > Email:	matthew@idrach.com
> > Web:	www.idrach.com
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
>=20
>=20
>=20