http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5197105.ece
"In a key decision that backs the right of lawyers to obtain private and confidential information belonging to an estranged spouse, Mr Justice Eady confirmed the legality of what is common practice."
So is opening/reading/copying letters addressed to your spouse illegal?
Is only keeping them/not passing them on illegal/theft?

This bits interesting


The right to obtain such information was important in ensuring that full disclosure, say of assets, was properly made, he said.

“As the judge emphasised, the obtaining of such documents must not be done impermissibly, by - for example - intercepting post or breaking into a desk, study or vehicle.” But that did not apply in this case.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/2821.html

Looks as though she did intercept- ie open and read a letter addressed to her husband
She seems to be regarded as having done nothing wrong because she eventually gave her husband the letter when he asked about it?
The appeal judge said:
"At one stage there was a suggestion that the solicitors, along with Mrs White, had actually committed a criminal offence contrary to s.1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The allegation of criminality was raised by the Claimant's solicitors in a letter and also touched upon in the hearing on 31 January 2008 before MacFarlane J, who thought it inappropriate. Nonetheless, it re-appeared in the Reply in the present litigation. It is unfortunate that it should have been made, but it is fundamental that a wrongful interception of a communication in that statutory context has to take place "in the course of its transmission by means of a public postal service". So far as the draft contract was concerned, it had already arrived when Mrs White took possession of it."

So what law is it that says it's illegal to open and read letters delivered to your address but with someone else's name on them and then passing them on to that person?

Hello Maggie

The Judge made it clear that intercepting mail must not be not this also applys to email.


Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights

It also cotravines the data protection act.

Any imformation gained by intercepting mail not addressed to you with your name on it is inadmissable in court.

It is an offence, one site members x2b was cautioned by the police for opening his mail.

I will try and find the specific law Maggie hopefully someone will know before i find it.

Bit confusing this?
Wife was accused by her estranged husband of taking the letter "impermissibly"
The judge refers to "intercepting post" as an impermissible act.
Husband says he didn't know the letter had been sent to him until the sender asked him about it.
When he found out from the sender that the letter had been sent and asked wife about it she gave him the letter which she had already faxed to her solicitor.
Her solicitor advised her to "leave the original for her husband's collection when he next visited the house"
So she must have opened the letter addressed to him but the judge found that she was not guilty of taking the letter impermissibly - so although she opened a letter addressed to her husband and did not tell him about it until he asked for it, the judge did not regard that as taking documents impermissibly?
So we can all open any letters sent to our spouses [or ex-spouses?] delivered to our address as long as we hand them back when and if they ask for them?

Is this what they call a precedent?

Hello Maggie

The lady i mentioned who was cautioned by the police was liveing with her husband though seperated in the same house at the time, but opening his mail, hopefully he will see this thread and tell you his story.

Thanks Dukey - you'll have guessed I have a problem understanding this..... and many other things .....
I don't see how Mrs White could not be found to have intercepted his post - unless legally "intercepting" means taking letters and not giving them back if you're asked to - rather than just opening letters addressed to someone else copying/faxing them to your solicitor and then giving them back - apparently found not to be an offence in the White case?