Confusion over recording law

THE POLICE would be wise to steer clear of investigating the so- called Dianagate tapes, lawyers said last night. To do so would be to enter a fiendishly complicated area, which offers rich pickings for barristers and precious little clarity for laymen.

The 1985 Interception of Communications Act was designed to meet the needs of the security services and ensure British legislation fell within the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes a limited right to privacy. The sort of situation resulting from the recording of the Princess of Wales's alleged conversation was only a secondary consideration for the Government, according to lawyers, the result of which is a confusing piece of legislation.

Under the Act, it is illegal to intercept a phone call intentionally. But what does intentional mean? Anyone who knows that two people are likely to be talking on mobile phones and sets out to record their conversation would clearly be breaching the Act. The offence carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment or a pounds 2,000 fine, a figure that will rise to pounds 5,000 in October.

But a radio ham who accidentally picks up a conversation while twiddling the dial on his equipment - as Cyril Reenan is supposed to have done when he overheard the Princess's alleged call - would not be committing an offence.

There are further complications. Each mobile phone conversation transmits on two frequencies. Radio hams can stumble on one of the voices but probably would need to search for the second. Last night, lawyers said that it was unclear whether this would fall under the 1985 Act. 'It is the sort of thing barristers could spend days arguing about,' a solicitor said.

The issue of publication of illegally taped phone calls is conspicuous by its absence in the Act. This almost certainly means that the Sun committed no offence by printing a verbatim account of the Princess's alleged phone call.

Lawyers also said that cordless phones, which are mainly used by people in their own homes, are not covered by the Act.

Yesterday, Laurence Lustgarten, reader in law at Warwick University, described the Act as a 'flaming mess'. He said: 'The real problem is that there is nothing that recognises a privacy right. There are no rules that say you have a space which cannot be intruded upon without permission.'

The police said that they did not plan to investigate Mr Reenan.