A GROWING political consensus now exists that the ban on the use of phone tap evidence in criminal trials should be lifted. But despite senior politicans and police officers supporting the move, the security services have still been able to block any change.
Their opposition has ensured that Whitehall is still, officially at least, continuing to debate the issue.
Few believe that it is being debated with any vigour after Charles Clarke’s announcement a year ago that he was not convinced that the ban should be lifted. He told MPs that he did not believe that allowing the use of phone tap evidence in court would improve the chances of convicting alleged terrorists.
In the USA phone tap evidence helped to put some of the biggest godfathers of organised crime behind bars. It is seen as a crucial weapon for fighting crime throughout the EU, in Australia and Japan — virtually everywhere except Britain and Ireland.
Within Britain opinion is divided, although support for lifting the ban now includes Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5.
Advertisement
Last night Michael Howard, a former Home Secretary, added his voice to those calling for phone tap evidence to be admissible in court, saying that it was possible to devise safeguards. Other supporters include Liberty, the human rights group, Ken Macdonald, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories.
Dame Stella has described the Home Secretary’s refusal to let intercept evidence into court as “ridiculous”. David Blunkett is believed to have argued in favour of the use of phone tap evidence when he was Home Secretary but was opposed by the security services. He is understood to have wanted use of the evidence to be restricted to the most serious cases.
The security services are opposed to the lifting of the ban because of fears that the use of intercepts would reveal details of their ability to tap into communications and enable suspects to take evasive action. They also fear that the security of agents and informants would be compromised.