Britain proposes allowing evidence from wiretapping in courts

Britain has some of the most extensive surveillance powers in the world and has used the information to monitor and capture suspects. But it is one of the few countries to bar courts from hearing evidence from intercepted calls and e-mail.

Intelligence officials have long feared that if details of methods used to catch a target were divulged in court, hundreds of other suspects would find ways to dodge the surveillance strategies.

But now, faced with a backlog of terrorism cases, security officials are prepared to allow intercepted material to be used in courts if the change does "not have a negative impact on the capabilities and effectiveness of the intelligence agencies," said a spokesman for GCHQ, the surveillance arm of British intelligence.

Brown said intelligence agencies will decide which parts of intercepted material are used in courts.

"The use of intercept in evidence characterizes a central dilemma we face as a free society — that of preserving our liberties and the rule of law, while at the same time keeping our nation safe and secure," Brown told lawmakers.

Questions have been raised over the extent of covert surveillance in Britain, including allegations this week that a bug hidden in the hollowed-out table of a prison visiting room was used to spy on a lawmaker's conversations with a terrorism suspect.

The home secretary authorized 1,333 wiretaps or communication intercepts in the last nine months of 2006, according to a report last week from Paul Kennedy, a former High Court judge who reviews warrants for bugs.

An investigation that led to five British men being sentenced to life in prison last year over a bomb plot involved the tapping of around 100 phone lines and cell phones, the GCHQ spokesman said.

Under the proposed law, prosecutors could use recordings or transcripts from bugs installed by police or intelligence officials in a suspect's home and cars or from covertly recorded face-to-face conversations with an undercover officer.

The proposed law faces no opposition from rival parties. Draft legislation is unlikely to be ready before summer.

Civil liberties campaigners have long advocated the use of wiretapping evidence in courts. They say suspects spend too long in jail without charge while police seek new evidence because they are barred from using intercepted exchanges.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said she worries about the extent of surveillance, but believes Brown's proposals "herald a new common sense in counter-terror policy."

She has called for judges — not Cabinet ministers — to have the power to authorize police and intelligence agencies to carry out intercepts.