EncroChat

In June 2020, the legal community became aware of EncroChat, an encrypted communication network. Since then, there have been numerous arrests, prosecutions, and convictions related to its use. Despite various legal challenges, the evidence obtained from EncroChat has been consistently deemed admissible in court.

Murray Hughman have been at the forefront of litigating these cases from the beginning. We have encountered raised several legal challenges, providing valuable insights into client care and expectations management. We have been responsive to the various decisions which the Crown Courts will now apply when considering defence arguments.

Coggins set a precedent for the admissibility of EncroChat evidence. While individual cases raised specific legal points, courts across the country treated Coggins as the definitive legal position on this matter. The subsequent case of A B D & C [2021] EWCA Crim 128 followed, which dealt with specific challenges to the conduct of the National Crime Agency in their interactions with Eurojust. Both cases ruled EncroChat admissible.

There were hopes that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) would rule EncroChat inadmissible, but this was a misunderstanding. The IPT was only evaluating the legality of the warrants used to gather evidence, not the admissibility of EncroChat data. Even if the warrants were deemed illegal, it didn't necessarily guarantee the evidence's inadmissibility. As the IPT found the EncroChat warrants to be legal, this further solidified the admissibility of the evidence.

Managing client expectations in these cases was challenging. Some defendants faced severe sentences and clung to any argument they could make. Others had to decide whether to await the IPT proceedings while maintaining not guilty pleas in the face of compelling evidence.

Lawyers can only provide advice based on evidence and potential sentencing impacts, but the ultimate decision lies with the client. Some clients still hope for successful legal challenges to the admissibility of EncroChat evidence, and novel arguments are still being explored.

However, the reality is that EncroChat's infiltration significantly curtailed organised crime. Overcoming this benefit would require substantial issues with the prosecution's conduct or the evidence's reliability to have the material ruled inadmissible.

Advising clients in EncroChat cases demands a deep understanding of the technical aspects, realistic assessment of viable arguments, and sensitive client care. If you are facing EncroChat-related litigation and seek consultation, consider reaching out to Murray Hughman.