HL Deb 08 February 2005 vol 669 cc102-3WA
Lord Lester of Herne Hill

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is the practical difference between permitting the use in criminal trials of intercept material and permitting the use of material obtained by other forms of police and intelligence surveillance. [HL1071]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

Surveillance does not involve the same sorts of sensitive capabilities and techniques as interception. Exposure of capability in the case of interception is potentially much more damaging because targets can more easily avoid interception by changing the way in which they choose to communicate.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Statement by the Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 26 January (WS 52), whether the review of the evidential use of intercept material in criminal proceedings analysed the law and practice in other common law and civil law jurisdictions; and, if so, what were the results of that analysis in relation to each jurisdiction that was reviewed. [HL1072]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

Legal regimes in a range of overseas countries were considered. The review found that the United Kingdom could not simply transplant the evidential regimes of other countries because our legal system is very different, being both adversarial and subject to ECHR considerations. No other country examined had a statutory basis for intelligence agencies to assist law enforcement agencies as is the case in the United Kingdom. The review underlined the importance and value of the unparalleled co-operation between the United Kingdom's intelligence and law enforcement agencies but noted that this would be at risk, in a way that did not apply to the same extent to overseas jurisdictions, if there was a possibility that sensitive capabilities and techniques might be exposed.