It's legal to open someone else's post but what does "incorrectly delivered" mean?

[DadDadDad]

If a letter is delivered by Royal Mail to your home, it's legal to open it unless certain conditions apply (to break the law you need to be doing it for dodgy reasons). Here's the relevant legislation (I've underlined the key clause) - beneath that I've set out the question I am trying to ask.

Postal Services Act 2000 section 84, which you can find here www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/26/section/84.

############################################

84 Interfering with the mail: general.

(1)A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he—
(a)intentionally delays or opens a postal packet in the course of its transmission by post, or
(b)intentionally opens a mail-bag.

...

(3)A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.

...

(5)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

##############################################

So, to commit an offence you have to be opening it to someone's detriment AND have no reasonable excuse AND it needs to be incorrectly delivered.

But what does "incorrectly delivered" mean?

If the postman has delivered it to the address on the envelope even if the addressee doesn't live there, is that correctly delivered (but incorrectly addressed)? That would mean the law only covers where the letter has been put through the wrong door. If that's the case, then I can open any letter with my address on and the law has nothing to say. (Clause (1) of the above legislation is irrelevant because once it's come through the letterbox it's no longer in transmission, I think).

A supplementary question would be if anyone knows of any cases of anyone being charged or convicted of this offence - when I've searched before I couldn't see any, but it would shed light on how the law is applied.

Did you post this because of the other thread?? If so taat and just post on that thread?

I was prompted by another thread, but this is a separate discussion, so not a TAAT, and perfectly reasonable to keep that other thread from being derailed.

(Part of my motive is if in future this topic comes up on AIBU etc, I can point to this thread with OP quoting the law).

Hopeful bump, but I'm guessing no-one has insight into my question (namely, what does incorrectly delivered mean?)

Given that the 3A says if you intend to act to other persons detriment, the definition of incorrectly delivered is irrelevant. The offence only occurs if your intention is malicious.

@titchy - I don't follow your logic. The offence requires both acting to detriment AND incorrectly delivered.

If a woman were sent an invitation to a job interview and her abusive husband binned it before she even knew about it, I assume his weasel lawyer could argue that as it wasn't incorrectly delivered to the address, the offence doesn't apply, even if there were detriment.

That's why in my OP I asked if there were any actual cases where this interpretation had been settled.