telephone tapping is essentially a matter for Parliament, not the Courts and it is clear the case of telephone tapping is a subject which cries out for legislation.
In contrast, there is still legislative authorities which, if appropriately used, may show the conferred powers to act by Secretary of State as it is not a violation of Convention Rights.
Rather, the limitations of legislative authority, this is not a matter for the courts to interfere within as it is subject to Parliamentary approval. This includes what my judgement has established continuously, that is, creating legislation regulating criminal or civil offence for any persons unlawfully intercepting communications. However, with the limited statutory provisions, it is difficult to say that it is not legal for the telecommunications of plaintiff being wire tapped by Solicitor-General on behalf of Home Secretary. I am certain judicial and legislative matters are separate and legislation would be the effective way forward.
———–
To further elaborate, if the above declarations in relation to the Convention rights are received;
It is therefore Held;
(1) That treaties are justiciable matters which are isolated within English court of law when concluding a judgement, and the Human Rights convention and violations of plaintiff’s telephone line has similar status to that of a treaty. Therefore, Human Rights conventions is not a justiciable matter for English courts.
Hansen v Radcliff Urban District Council was considered.
(a) Postal services and telecommunications – telephone tapping by the Post Office by means of recording telephone conversations is not against English law as mentioned by Sir Robert Megarry V. Therefore, I conclude that the status of the Convention is a matter which isn’t arbitrary to discuss for purpose of judgement.
(2) Article 8 of the Convention Rights claimed by plaintiff cannot be legally used in defence or dependence for justification of rights made. Accordingly, it is not possible for courts to make this specific Co