In R v. Khan (1996) the House of Lords considered the legality of a conviction based on evidence obtained by means of an electronic listening device attached to a private house without the knowledge of either the owners or occupiers. This invasion of privacy was said to have two aspects; first, the placing of the device on the premises of the occupier without his consent; and secondly, the act of listening to the defendant's conversations. The House of Lords held that the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) were relevant to the exercise of the trial judge's discretion as to whether to exclude the evidence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The House of Lords, however, rejected the proposition that an identifiable right to privacy existed under English law. The defendant argued that there was an analogy with the decision of the European Court in Malone v. United Kingdom. In that case the United Kingdom was held to be in breach of the ECHR, because the interception of private telephone and mail communications was unregulated. This led to the passing of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The defendant in "Khan" argued that the interference with his right to privacy was not respected in accordance with the law, as required by the ECHR. In the absence of a clear statement as to the enforceability of the ECHR in English courts, legislation is required to standardize the invasion of privacy in the pursuit of serious criminals, with attention to the legal regulation of covert listening activities by the police. 8 references