Consultation on change to RIP interception definition

[Francis Davey]

On 9 November 2010 23:15, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I don't think that was or is the real deficiency in interception law - the
> problem is more in a lack of enforcement. However as they will change 3(1)
> no matter what the consultation says (in my experience when they put out a
> consultation they have already mostly decided what they are going to do), I
> first ask whether the proposed change makes it a strict liability offence?

Not if section 1 (the substantive offence) remains the same, eg s1(1):

"(1)It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without
lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any
communication in the course of its transmission by means of—"

The phrase "intentionally" is the required mental state. The change to
3 would mean that absence of lawful authority under 3 would be a
strict element.

-- 
Francis Davey