## Facts

- Alison Halford, an Assistant Chief Constable in Merseyside Police, pursued sex-discrimination proceedings after being denied promotion.
- She had two office telephones connected to an internal police telecommunications system (not the public network), and had sole use of her office.
- One line was understood to be available for personal or private calls; she was not given notice that calls might be monitored or intercepted, and was not told of restrictions on use.
- During the discrimination dispute, she was assured she could use her office telephones for communications relating to that litigation.
- She alleged that senior police officers intercepted calls she made from her office, including calls to legal advisers, to obtain information for use against her in the discrimination proceedings.
- The alleged interception concerned communications on the internal police system, for which there was no clear statutory framework authorizing and regulating such interception.

## Issues

1. Whether telephone calls made from workplace telephones on an internal police system fall within “private life” and “correspondence” under Article 8(1).
2. If interception occurred, whether the interference was justified under Article 8(2), including whether it was “in accordance with the law.”

## Decision

- The court held that Halford’s office telephone calls were capable of falling within “private life” and “correspondence” under Article 8(1).
- The interception of those calls constituted an interference with Article 8 rights.
- The interference was not “in accordance with the law” because domestic law did not provide an adequate legal basis and safeguards for interception on the internal police telecommunications system.
- The court found a violation of Article 8 and proceeded to award just satisfaction.

## Legal Principles

- Workplace telephone calls may be protected by Article 8 as “private life” and “correspondence” where the caller has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Reasonable expectation of privacy may be supported by factors such as sole use of an office, a line designated or understood for private use, lack of notice of monitoring, and employer assurances about permitted use.
- Interception of communications by state authorities must be grounded in a clear, accessible, and foreseeable legal framework that both authorizes interception and provides safeguards against abuse.
- Where the “in accordance with the law” requirement is not met, an Article 8(2) justification fails without needing to resolve necessity or proportionality.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that intercepting a senior police officer’s office telephone calls on an internal system, without a governing legal framework and safeguards, violated Article 8 because workplace communications can be private and state monitoring must rest on a legally defined and regulated basis.


Halford v. United Kingdom, App. No. 20605/92 (Eur. Ct. H.R. June 25, 1997)