tactics and strategy
Why is ‘phone evidence’ so prolific in prosecutions these days? It is a simple recognition that the explosion in the last 10 years of the use of mobile phones has given the police a very useful investigatory and evidential tool. The mobile phone is a personal tracking device and the phone number might reveal a record of communications with other suspects.
The use of telephone evidence is now an almost essential part of any allegation of conspiracy. The essential element of the offence of conspiracy is evidence of an agreement with others to commit an offence. The ‘agreement’, of course, is never a signed document expressing a contract to commit a crime. The Crown will simply invite the jury to infer the agreement from the surrounding circumstances. This will often mean heavy reliance on the phone contacts between suspects and also the timing and frequency of those contacts.
For example, the Crown might invite a jury to infer that one series of calls by a Defendant to others is the ‘arrangement stage’, and the next series of calls, happening just after the arrest of those others, is the Defendant desperately trying to find out what has happened to his drugs, guns or whatever. Indeed the police have used the tactic of making arrests of suspects lower down an indictment just to see what the reaction is of those higher up – this includes an analysis of telephone call patterns.
The problem for those facing serious charges is that the calls may be quite innocent and the accused simply cannot remember why he made or received certain calls. He may be asked about a series of one minute calls made many months earlier. The other problem is the danger of guilty association; in other words the Defendant has been up to no good but of a completely different type, and much less serious than the detective at the interview seems to be suggesting. A police theory then appears to be backed up by the phone evidence.
So what are the issues in a phone evidence case that Defendants and their advisors should be considering?
Of course in order for the police to suggest that a suspect has been in phone contact with another suspect the police need to know the phone numbers of the two concerned. Most mobile phone users use phone credits rather than accounts. This means the network provider, BT, T-Mobile etc will probably have no record of the name and address of the subscriber. This is not a problem for the police when the phone is seized directly from a suspect on arrest. It is a problem when a series of incriminating text messages, or calls patterning, are then found on the phone from another number that can’t be traced through the network provider.
In that situation the police will hope that the call/text message is to or from someone logged into the mobile’s memory/SIM card address book. For instance, there may be a series of calls just after the suspect’s arrests from someone ‘John’ – ‘John’ may also have sent an incriminating text message. The police may suspect that ‘John’ is their suspect; John Smith. The police now, ideally, need John Smith’s phone to be on him when he is arrested, or in his car or home. There is no rule of law that provides that phone numbers being attributed to certain suspects have to reach a certain gold evidential standard. No phone may be discovered at all. The police may just ask for the phone billing for John’s phone and discover that that phone is used to call John’s Mum, John’s work-place etc etc, creating a stronger attribution of the phone number to ‘John’. On the other hand if the attribution is very weak the defence could make an application to the Judge that this evidence is so weak, so inherently unreliable, that it ought in fairness not to be allowed to go before the jury as an attribution. The Judge may agree and that would be the end of that phone evidence. Alternatively he might rule that the issue is one for the jury and all he will do is direct that any phone charts make it plain that the tag ‘John Smith’ next to the offending phone number on the chart is replaced with the phrase ‘phone attributed to John Smith’. In the case of R v Mason, Court of Appeal, 14th February 2006, the Court of Appeal held that an entry in the memory of a co-Defendant’s phone, which linked the number attributed to the Defendant to him by name, was an admissible attribution. However, in a case that Rahman Ravelli Solicitors were involved in Sheffield Crown Court recently a successful submission was made to exclude certain telephone evidence on the basis that its attribution was so weak. There is no rule of law and all depends on the facts and circumstances of the individual case.
Mobile phones can of course be powerful evidence of where a particular individual was at a certain time. The evidence comes usually from an expert briefed by the police who will consider information from the network provider about which of their ‘cell-sites’ were used in certain calls; i.e. which cell picked up or received the radio wave transmissions carrying the call. If the police want to show the movement of an individual from one place to another then the expert can show how the phone signal passed from one cell site to another as the handset moved, or simply show that some time after one call was made another was made that used a different cell. It has to be borne in mind that in rural areas the use of a cell may not mean the user is particularly close to that site, whereas in places like London the logging of a call on a particular site invariably means the handset is very close by – perhaps within metres. Such evidence, coupled with evidence of calls made around certain key events, may provide the prosecution with compelling material that needs very thorough analysis by anyone defending in such a case.
Police officers who have made a number of arrests and have seized a number of mobile phones will request their Force Analysts to turn the billing information into something meaningful that a jury can understand. In other words the production of colour coded telephone link charts showing diagrams linking phone numbers with suspects and with each other and showing the times of calls between the various handsets. These charts are often the centre-piece for prosecutions. However, it must be remembered that these charts are just that ‘charts’; they are not evidence of the actual phone calls. The evidence comes from the phone billing and if the defence cannot check the phone billing against the charts for accuracy then the charts may have to be heavily edited by the Crown. Also the evidence is of calls the prosecution want the jury to know about – there may be other information in the billing which assist the Defendant.
The authors were involved in a large drugs conspiracy case where material from the phone companies had been destroyed, as they routinely are after a certain period, and the police no longer had the billing information originally provided. All that was available was the charts. This created an opportunity to argue that the charts could not go before the jury as there was no evidential basis to support them and that the charts were not a reflection of the billing as they involved an element of human input and the charts were therefore hearsay. In the event the matter was not argued as the Defendant was discharged following a separate legal argument. Since then however the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has been implemented and it is now easier for the Crown to have hearsay evidence admitted. Section 129 of that Act preserves the position. The section provides that representations of fact made ‘otherwise than by a person’ (i.e. by a computer) which depend upon their accuracy on information supplied by a person are not admissible “unless it is proved that the information was accurate”. It can be seen therefore that there are still potential arguments available to challenge the accuracy of phone charts. If the Crown cannot produce the billing material then the charts may be lost to them – the arguments will turn on hearsay issues, see eg R v O’ Connor TLR 19/7/10.
In a case called R v Leonard 173 JP 366, CA the Court of Appeal found that text messages stored on a phone that was discovered on someone who had been arrested were hearsay. These messages were supposedly commenting on the quality of drugs that had been delivered to the holder of the ‘phone. Of course just because something is hearsay does not mean it is not admissible, but it is a reminder that challenges can be made to what may seem, at first blush, to be solid evidence.
Telephone evidence can make or break a case. Telephones provide a picture of a defendant because they are such are part of modern life. That is often the argument that the jury must be presented with the ‘complete picture’ and not just snap shots or edited highlights. The challenges we have outlined here e.g. attribution, hearsay etc are not easy. There is often a dense amount of material to consider – more often in the unused material as opposed to the used evidence. As ever early preparation is the key if there is to be any hope of mounting any kind of challenge to this sort of evidence.
Jonathan Lennon is a Barrister specialising in serious and complex criminal defence case at 23 Essex Street Chambers in London. He is a contributing author to Covert Human Intelligence Sources, (2008 Waterside Press) and has extensive experience in all aspects of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Aziz Rahman is a SolicitorAdvocate and Partner at the leading Criminal Defence firm Rahman Ravelli Solicitors, specialising in Human Rights, Financial Crime and Large Scale Conspiracies/Serious crime. Rahman Ravelli are members of the Specialist Fraud Panel.
Comments about this article
11/1/2011 Eileen -Even in built up areas like London with cell sites in abundance can the collected data then analyzed by "experts" be deemed accurate? Is their accurate data to support the cell site condition at the immediate time of mobile phone use? Isn't it correct that the cell site condition ,network usage and whether mobile handset is 3G dependent can affect which cell site mobile phone connects to and captures data? This being the case then unless cell site conditions were exactly replicated it would be impossible to have an accurate report.Might be instead of mobile call connecting to immediate cell site it connects to the nearest available cell site? This besides calls can and are generated by voip and can show any cli number!
15/6/2011 Andy - - www.sytech-consultants.comYou raise some valid points Eileen. Cell site analysis in built up areas can be trickier due to the amount of overlapping cells which may all have similar signal strengths. As mentioned in this article it is used to 'support assertions' made by either the prosecution or defence in order to assist their case. Therefore cell site evidence should usually be used in conjunction with other evidence such as CCTV/ANPR etc but can of course be used to undermine a claim by the user with regards to where they were at the time of recorded cell usage should the records and subsequent survey show that the cell utilised by the defendants phone is inconsistent with them being at their 'alibi location'.
2/11/2011 bigbusmanThere are no doubt some clever people in the communications indusrty that will be able to rip a case apart with their knowledge in that field.There will no doubt also be someone legally minded who will find a loophole or anomaly, or error etc, in the Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000(RIPA 2000), or some obscure element in article 8 of the human Rights Act to destroy a case.
Prisoners serving less than four years to get the vote
Prisoner wins compensation from Parole Board for delay despite not being released
HDC and the ‘presumption of unsuitability’
From over the wall
It’s Yesterday Once More
Politicians don’t have a clue
Kenneth Clarke’s Green Paper: ‘Sentencing and Rehabilitation’
The General they wanted to run the Prison Service
Month by Month
Forum for innocent lifers
Psychologists – effective risk assessment and management
The IEP scheme isn’t worth a light
Time is money
Offender Learning inside custody: the present situation
‘It’s a shambles…’
The ‘Cadder’ ruling changes law in Scotland
Current page: Telephone Evidence
April 2014 Headlines
IPP SENTENCE UNJUST AND STUPID
They have never had to scrimp and scrape like the rest of us
Sink the redundant vessels
Chris Grayling at Policy Exchange
Is Chris Grayling a sociopath
Holiday camp prisons...really
The book ban...
RIP the presumption of innocence
Supreme Court hearing bid for exhibits
...a black mark on British justice
Month by Month - April 2014
Don’t suffer alone
The growing shadow of historical allegations: police interviews under caution
To apostrophe or not apostrophe
A cure for verbal diarrhoea
Are you on remand
Fed up with bang up
just another brick in the wall
From over the wall
Don’t You Worry Child
What price justice
Parole in the brave new world
The Deep Web – high tech crime at a new level
The rationale of recall
The exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence
Parole- IPP and lifer release- better hope
New! Volume 5 of
is now available!
A collection of poems by prisoners of all backgrounds.
Availabe to buy from this site! Volume 1,2,3 and 4 are also still available and you can SAVE by purchasing bundles!
The Useful Services for Prisoners scheme from insidetime provides discounts, vouchers and other benefits from USP Group Members for Prisoners, their families and legal advisors. Click the image above to read more about it.
You can subscribe to insidetime Newspaper and get the paper each month delivered to your door!
Advertise your business or solicitors office to a highly defined target audience.
Inside Time has produced a number of books and publications you can purchase online.
All contact info for the Operations office and the Editorial Team.
Our site map page contains links to all pages on the insidetime site.
We have a number of external websites which you may be interested on our Links Page.
Everything you need to know about visiting people in prison; procedures, opening times, directions etc.
Comprehensive information about each prison regime; lock down times, facilities, healthcare etc.
*NEW* Detailed information about IRC - Immigration Removal Centres.
Various pages of information for help and support organisations and networks for those in custody as well as recently released. Also information for friends and family.
This grants and funding pdf document aims to meet the need of prisoners and ex-offenders for accurate, up to date information on the supplementary funding available to prisoners.
Information on rules & regulations used throughout the prison service.
The Glossary of Prison Related Terms explains what all the acronyms and terms stand for with prison related matters. Includes links to external sites to further explain things.
We have produced many Prison Related Fact Sheets inc. Legal Fact Sheets, Parole Fact Sheets and Other related information.
You can search our solicitor database for listings of solicitors in your area that provide the services you require.
You can search our barrister database for listings of barristers in your area that provide the services you require.
You can search our address database in many ways to retrieve contact information for all those elusive addresses you need in a hurry.
This document provides details of leading training providers who offer sound professional training.
Inside Information has produced a number of books and publications you can purchase online.
Our site map page contains links to all pages on the insideinformation site.
Use the Contact Us Feedback form to send us suggestions, plus our address and phone numbers.
insidejustice was launched in July 2010 to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice.
Full introduction is on the insidejustice homepage