Home Search [2024] EWCA Crim 88
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Landmark Case

R v Thompson

[2024] EWCA Crim 88
Date 28 February 2024
Court Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Judge Lord Justice Popplewell
Views 312

Summary

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) considered the admissibility of digital evidence obtained from encrypted messaging applications. The Court held that evidence obtained through lawful interception warrants was admissible, but set out important guidelines for the handling of such evidence.

Headnote

Criminal evidence - encrypted communications - interception warrants - Investigatory Powers Act 2016 - digital evidence - Article 8 ECHR - admissibility

Parties

Claimant/Appellant R (Crown)
Defendant/Respondent Thompson

Full Judgment

JUDGMENT

Lord Justice Popplewell

1. This is an appeal against conviction. The appellant, David Thompson, was convicted on 5 June 2023 at the Central Criminal Court of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. He was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case relied substantially on messages recovered from the appellant's mobile telephone via an encrypted messaging application.

The Ground of Appeal

3. The sole ground of appeal is that the judge erred in admitting the encrypted messages into evidence. The appellant contends that the evidence was obtained unlawfully and/or that its admission rendered the trial unfair.

Digital Evidence Framework

4. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 provides the legal framework for the lawful interception of communications. Under section 15, a targeted interception warrant may be issued by the Secretary of State where it is necessary for one of the purposes specified in section 20.

5. In this case, a targeted interception warrant was duly obtained. The question is whether the execution of the warrant, and the subsequent handling of the intercepted material, complied with the statutory requirements.

Analysis

6. Having examined the warrant and the evidence of the officers involved in its execution, I am satisfied that the interception was carried out lawfully and in accordance with the terms of the warrant.

7. However, this case highlights the need for clear guidelines on the handling of digital evidence from encrypted platforms. The volume of data that can be obtained is vast, and proper safeguards are essential to protect privacy rights under Article 8 ECHR.

8. The following principles should be observed: (i) applications for warrants must clearly specify the communications to be intercepted; (ii) material not relevant to the investigation must be destroyed promptly; (iii) the chain of custody of digital evidence must be meticulously documented.

Conclusion

9. The appeal is dismissed. The evidence was lawfully obtained and properly admitted. The conviction is safe.

Legislation Cited

Investigatory Powers Act 2016 ss.15, 20 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.78 Human Rights Act 1998 ECHR Article 8

Cases Cited

R v Looseley [2001] UKHL 53
R v P [2002] 1 AC 146
Re McE [2009] UKHL 15