Can I legally “hack” my partner’s mobile phone?

Simon Henson explains what’s lawful, what’s not — and what to do instead

In the latest episode of Titan PI TV, host Simon Henson — Managing Director of Titan Private Investigation Limited — tackles one of the most common and most risky questions private investigators are asked: “Can I legally hack my partner’s phone?”

It’s a query that, according to Henson, lands with Titan almost daily, often via online chat and usually against the backdrop of relationship breakdown, suspicion, or what he describes as “matrimonial differences”. When trust has eroded, the temptation to look for definitive proof can feel overwhelming — and in 2026, where so much of our lives is conducted through a device we carry everywhere, the mobile phone can seem like the quickest route to answers.

But the episode’s message is clear: while lawful digital forensics is possible, what many people casually call “hacking” is often illegal, and pursuing it through the wrong channels can create far more serious problems than the original suspicion ever did.

Mobile Phone Hacking: why the question keeps coming up?

People typically want one thing: access to messages, call logs, social media chats, and other digital traces that might indicate infidelity or deception. And, crucially, many people assume that if they pay a company, or if the device belongs to a spouse, it must be legal. Henson’s response is more nuanced — and it hinges on permission.

“Can I?” vs “Can I do it legally?” — permission is the dividing line

Henson answers the headline question in two parts. First: Can a phone be accessed and analysed? He says yes. Second, and far more important: Can it be done legally? He again says yes — but only under strict conditions.

In Henson’s telling, the lawful route requires:

• Permission from the owner of the phone (and he also references the “bill payer/phone owner” concept), and
• The phone’s PIN/lock code.

Where those conditions are met, Titan’s process is framed not as “hacking”, but as controlled device submission to a lab for analysis. Henson describes a chain-of-custody style workflow: the phone would need to be sent to Titan’s lab via Recorded Delivery or Special Delivery through Royal Mail, arriving by 1:00pm the next day. From there, Titan would carry out analysis, looking for signs of malware or spyware and “download everything” recoverable from the device.

The distinction matters. In investigative terms, the moment you access a device without authorisation, you move from evidence gathering into potential criminality. The episode repeatedly underlines that legal access is only possible when the person who owns the device has knowingly agreed to it.

What can be recovered — and what can’t

For viewers trying to understand what phone analysis can actually yield, Henson lists several examples of information that may be recoverable during a lawful examination. These include:

• Deleted phone messages, such as SMS text messages
• Deleted call logs
• Social media messages (with an important caveat, as explained below)

However, he draws a hard line on one specific platform: WhatsApp.

Henson says Titan cannot retrieve WhatsApp content in the way many people imagine, particularly once messages have been deleted. His explanation is that WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted and is not stored on a server in the same way people assume. In the episode, he argues that once it’s deleted from both sender and receiver devices, “it doesn’t exist”, adding that “not even the police can get it”.

For the audience, the practical takeaway is that anyone promising “full WhatsApp recovery” after deletion should be treated with extreme scepticism. Even where other data sources may be available, WhatsApp is frequently the centre of modern relationship communications — and it’s often the first place people want to look. That mismatch between expectation and reality is part of why scams thrive in this space.

The legal risks: offences, not “grey areas”

Where permission is missing, Henson says the act of trying to obtain information from a partner’s phone can expose a person — and any company assisting them — to multiple offences. He cites legislation including:

• The Computer Misuse Act 1990 (he references “Section 1” in the episode)
• The Data Protection Act 2018, specifically Sections 170–173
• The Communications Act, citing Section 127 (as stated in the transcript)

His warning is blunt: even an attempt to access the information unlawfully — even if unsuccessful — can still amount to committing an offence. In other words, “I tried but didn’t get in” is not a safe defence. The episode emphasises the seriousness of the potential consequences, including prosecution and the prospect of imprisonment.

That point is likely to surprise viewers who assume this is a private domestic matter. But the law generally does not treat unauthorised access to computer material or personal data as “relationship admin”. It treats it as unauthorised access, unlawful obtaining of personal data, and misuse of communications — regardless of the emotional context.

High-profile examples: a reminder that prison sentences happen

To illustrate that phone hacking is not theoretical, Henson references well-known UK cases associated with News of the World. He cites:

• Ian Edmondson, who he says received 18 months in prison for hacking phones.
• Andy Coulson, who he says received eight months in prison.

The point isn’t to litigate old scandals; it’s to show that courts have historically taken phone hacking seriously, and that individuals involved have faced custodial sentences. Henson’s message to viewers is that if public figures can go to prison over it, ordinary members of the public should not assume they will be treated leniently — or that a “domestic” motive will excuse it.

The scam economy: “£5,000 to hack your partner’s phone”

Another key part of the episode is a consumer warning. Henson says he has heard of companies offering partner-phone hacking services — and says their names come up “time and time again” in the industry. He declines to name them, but he describes a pattern: clients are allegedly charged around £5,000 with the promise of hacking a partner’s phone.

His view is that victims are likely to receive no information at all — and will have little practical recourse afterwards, because reporting the situation to police would involve admitting they tried to commission something illegal. As Henson puts it, you cannot realistically complain you were scammed while asking someone to do something “completely illegal”.

Whether viewers are currently tempted to try a “hack service” or simply anxious about what their partner might be doing, this section of the episode acts as a strong deterrent: even apart from the legal risk, the marketplace is rife with opportunists who will happily take money and disappear.

If you suspect infidelity, what can be done legally?

Importantly, Henson doesn’t stop at “don’t do it”. He outlines alternative investigative approaches that Titan says can be carried out lawfully, depending on circumstances.

He frames matrimonial investigations as having two broad scenarios:

1. You don’t know when it’s happening
2. You do know when there’s an opportunity

In the first scenario — where the timing is unclear — Henson suggests a method focused on understanding patterns and routines. He says it may be possible to deploy a GPS tracking device on a vehicle to establish where someone goes and when, which can help identify routines or unusual trips. He indicates that this may be sufficient on its own, or it may guide a decision to progress to surveillance.

In the second scenario — where there’s a known opportunity (for example, the partner is likely to go out, or the circumstances create an opening) — Henson describes deploying two operatives to covertly observe, monitor, and record movements. The aim is to document locations visited, associations, and conduct — including “body language” and interactions — generating evidence in a way that avoids unlawful device access.

The emphasis throughout is that there are ways to pursue answers without stepping into criminality, and that professional investigators should be steering clients towards lawful evidence-gathering rather than risky shortcuts.

Mobile Phone Hacking: The episode’s bottom line

Henson closes the episode with a clear recommendation: do not instruct a company to hack your partner’s phone. His reasons are twofold:

1. It’s illegal, and you could face serious consequences, including prison.
2. You’re highly likely to be ripped off by unscrupulous operators.

For those watching at home with a knot in their stomach — unsure whether to confront, investigate, or ignore a gnawing suspicion — the episode offers a reality check: the urge to know is understandable, but the method matters. The lawful route is narrower than many people think, and the unlawful route can be life-changing in all the wrong ways.

If there’s one headline takeaway from Titan’s latest Friday instalment, it’s this: seeking the truth should never come at the cost of committing an offence — and anyone promising “easy phone hacks” is likely offering either a legal nightmare, a scam, or both.

What’s Next on Titan PI TV?

Titan PI TV continues to grow steadily, with over 3,300 subscribers and counting—a testament to the appetite for straight-talking guidance in a complex field. If you found Simon Simon’s insights useful, subscribe to the channel to catch future episodes. New content drops every Friday at 3:00 pm, offering grounded advice for investigators, agency owners, and professionals who work with them.

Thank you for reading, watching, or listening to this week’s blog post on Titan PI TV. For more expert advice and behind-the-scenes insights, subscribe to Titan PI TV on YouTube or download the Titan PI TV podcast wherever you get your podcasts. If you found this information helpful, please give us a thumbs up and subscribe to our channel. Stay tuned for more insights into the world of private investigations. Until next time, stay safe and keep learning!

Titan PI TV: Uncovering the Truth, One Investigation at a Time.