In the case of Kahn v U.K. Lord Nolan stated to the House of Lords

The courts are required to 'read and give effect' to primary legislation in a way which is compatible with the Convention Rights 'so far is possible to do so'.

Examination of the effects of the Convention on the Criminal Justice System reveals the problems, of which some will be touched upon in this discussion. Police surveillance has already fallen foul of Article 8 in a number of cases. In the cases of Kahn v United Kingdom 2000, and the similar case of P.G. and J.H. v United Kingdom 2001 (The Times, 19th October 2001), it was held that there had been a breach of Article 8 and Article 13, but not a violation of Article 6. It was held that the applicant's right to respect for private and family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, had been violated. This is simply because the domestic law did not regulate the use of covert listening devices at the time of the applicants conviction. The European Court did however find that there had been no violation of Article 6, that the applicant did have a fair trial. I cannot help but think that these two judgements contradict each other. If the evidence violated Article 8 and the case was entirely based upon the weight of this evidence, then how could it have been a fair trial?

In the case of Kahn v U.K. Lord Nolan stated to the House of Lords: 'The sole cause of this case coming to your Lordships House is the lack of a statutory system regulating the use of surveillance devices by the police. The absence of such systems is astonishing, the more so in view of the statutory framework which has governed the use of such devices by the Security Service since 1989, and the interception of communications by the police as well as by other agencies since 1985.