| Author |
Message |
|
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
|
  | | | | BBC News wrote: Police boss might defy High CourtThe Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police Colin Port says he is prepared to go to jail rather than return suspected child pornography. Officers investigating an alleged paedophilia case in Bristol raided the Leicestershire home of discredited computer expert Terence Bates, 68. They seized images of suspected child pornography and computer hard drives. But before the items could be examined, the High Court ruled the raid unlawful and said they should be returned. Bates obtained notice of a judicial review at the High Court after police investigating a possible paedophile conspiracy carried out the raid, in which 87 hard drives were taken.
'Serious matter'Two senior judges at the court ordered police to hand back the hard drives and forbade any examination of the seized material. Mr Port said: "Common sense dictates to me that we should not be returning indecent images to anyone - and yet I am prevented from even examining the material." He said that defying the court was a "serious matter" and that the decision would not be taken lightly. Mr Port added that he was taking legal advice and considering his position over the matter. An Avon and Somerset Police spokesman said: "We are discussing the findings of the judicial review and any learning opportunities it presents to the organisation. "Throughout this matter, our officers believed that they were acting with good intentions and in the interests of public safety and protection." In April last year, Bates from Nevill Holt, Leicestershire, was given a six-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, after it was revealed he had lied in court about his qualifications. Bates, who was convicted of making false written statements and perjury, had given expert evidence in a number of cases involving child pornography.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/e ... 056307.stm | | | | |
I am no fan of people who harbour indecent images of children (or rather the man involved is only suspected in this case). However, this is, frankly, disgusting. For the Police to disobey the order of the High Court is completely out of order. If the Chief Constable defies the Court Order and examines the hard drives anyway I expect him to be sacked instantly. If I'm ever found Guilty of a crime in a Court of Law I presume I can happily stick two fingers up to the justice system and refuse my sentence? Didn't think so. 
|
| Mon May 18, 2009 9:45 pm |
|
|
|
jonlumb
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 4141
Location: Exeter
|
I think that before passing comment, I would like to know the basis of the raid being considered unlawful.
_________________
"The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."
|
| Mon May 18, 2009 10:11 pm |
|
|
|
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
|
Does it matter? The day the Police start ignoring the authority of the Courts (and by extension, the Crown) then we're quickly getting into Zimbabwe territory (where the court system is a joke - the Police ignore it daily).
|
| Mon May 18, 2009 10:21 pm |
|
|
|
jonlumb
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 4141
Location: Exeter
|
Ok, if the police had completely failed to get Magistrate's Order to allow the raid (I think that's the relevant docket) then it is a fair comment. However, if it was due to a minor technicality, which given the amount of paperwork required these days is more than likely, then I think the courts are being exceptionally bloody minded about the whole case. There was a time when the legal system was such that I would have agreed unquestioningly with you about the police following the order of the courts, but given the way rulings have switched far more in favour of the defendant (in particular those that are guilty it seems, but that isn't a reflection on this case) then it certainly makes me much less comfortable with the situation. And let's face it, this is a long way from Zimbabwe territory. It's a one off, isolated incident, not a matter of routine operation.
_________________
"The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."
|
| Tue May 19, 2009 6:39 am |
|
|
|
Agrajag
Has a life
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 31
|
I'd still say that whether they forgot to add a full stop to a sentence or didn't get the right paperwork in the first place is irrelevant. The judicial process - complete with all these technicalities - is designed to be open, accountable and effective.
By ignoring the ruling of the court, the police force in this case is moving themselves outside of this judicial process. I for one, don't want a police force that can ignore court rulings as and when it feels it's inconvenient for them. If they are so sure of the merits of the case then they should ensure they get the process right in the first place.
It's bad enough that Jacqui Smith is already doing this regards DNA database.
_________________
--Previously known as Strug1979
|
| Tue May 19, 2009 8:18 am |
|
|
|
l3v1ck
What's a life?
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
|
I'm with the police on this one!
|
| Tue May 19, 2009 6:27 pm |
|
|
|
pcernie
Legend
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
|
I can see both sides of the argument, but it'd be nice if common sense prevailed and a compromise was reached - like asking Master Bates* to consider revealing what was on the hard disk voluntarily. He probably wouldn't, but at least it's a suggestion towards sorting the matter out without another costly legal case. * I couldn't resist  _________________Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
|
| Tue May 19, 2009 11:20 pm |
|
|
|
forquare1
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:36 pm
Posts: 5150
Location: /dev/tty0
|
I think the police need to be questioned, but I also think that if this Mr Port is willing to risk his job for this, then that needs to be listened to.
|
| Tue May 19, 2009 11:26 pm |
|
|
|
JJW009
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:58 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: behind the sofa
|
That. The inadmissibility of evidence obtained through illegal means is possibly the most important single fact preventing a "police state". The police are not above the law. Any officer that thinks he is should be kicked off the force. Preferably directly into gaol with a bunch of nazis to teach him what "violation of human rights" means. _________________jonbwfc's law: "In any forum thread someone will, no matter what the subject, mention Firefly." When you're feeling too silly for x404, youRwired.net
|
| Wed May 20, 2009 12:13 am |
|
|
|
jonlumb
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 4141
Location: Exeter
|
You see I whole heartedly agree with the principle. The problem is that the sort of thing that can be used to make evidence inadmissable in court is so mind-numbingly petty it really runs counter to common sense. The problem is that until the paperwork the police are required to do is majorly re-organised, made vastly more efficient etc. we are going to have guilty people getting off on technicalities etc. If it's a minor issue like a speeding ticket, I'm not too fussed, but this is a for more serious issue. I suspect a far more sensible solution for the police is to return the computer with two sets of officers. One set to return the computer itself, the second lot with all the neccessary documentation for the search warrant etc. so that there is no chance for the person in question to do any editing with thermite or similar.
_________________
"The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."
|
| Wed May 20, 2009 10:33 am |
|
|
|
Linux_User
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
|
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 368314.eceGood, I hope the scumbag rots in jail for treating the legal system and due process with such contempt. I also hope Avon & Somerset Constabulary get hit with a rather large fine.
|
| Wed May 27, 2009 1:44 am |
|
|
|
hifidelity2
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
|
I wonder who he gave expert testimony for? If it was for the police and they then lost a case is this them just being vindictive If it was against the police and they lost a conviction based on his testimony is it them being vindictive I have to say that I agree with the police not above the law comments They have legal experts to make sure that the rules are followed and if they have cocked up then they need o ensure that this does not happen again. Also I am sure they will keep a very close eye on the guy from now on and will find some pretext to go back in and get the info again Once they feel they can ignore the courts then this just escalates from what might be serious cases to more and more petty cases. “He looked a bit like a guy that once shouted “PIG” so we are going to keep him in prison without trial until we are 100% sure he isn’t they guy”
|
| Wed May 27, 2009 10:16 am |
|
|
|
hifidelity2
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
|
Further reporting on this looks interesting
It looks like the drives taken we evidence from cases where we was acting for the defence which he was holding in case of need of appeals. Hence the drives and their data would be subject to court rules / client confidentiality
This makes it more serious as the police are saying that they can if they feel like it seize any documents / evidence that your legal counsel ( e.g. Solicitor etc) have
|
| Thu May 28, 2009 1:23 pm |
|
|
|
okenobi
Spends far too much time on here
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:59 pm
Posts: 4932
Location: Sestriere, Piemonte, Italia
|
I'd be interested to hear from the horses mouth on both sides. I don't trust the media to bring me the "facts" on stuff like this.
That said, any officer who feels he can take the law into his own hands (on whatever level) is not fit tobe in the force. End of. 5-0 take liberties all the time as it is.
|
| Thu May 28, 2009 3:27 pm |
|
|
|
ethelredalready
Occasionally has a life
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 119
Location: West Wales
|
Without having the "Full facts", or anything like, this seems like another blatant case of the Police taking the law into their own hands. It sounds like something from "Ashes to Ashes". It took the best part of a thousand years to create a nation in Britain based on the rule of Law, where the citizen has inalienable rights to be treated fairly. There are occasions when this means that the guilty go free, but far better a few guilty men go free than a single innocent should suffer.
Complaints about "bureacracy" leave me cold: as above, there are good reasons why the Police are obliged to "get it right", otherwise they have carte blanche to terrorise those they merely suspect of wrongdoing. Those of us from an older generation remember the appaling corruption rife in the Metropolitan Police where the guilty escaped after making "donations" and the innocent were "fitted-up" out of malice & spite. Proper recording and paperwork help ensure that everything is done properly, and make it clear exactly what is happening. The various "Guildford Four" type miscarriages of justice sprang from a lax attitude towards "bureacracy" and a need to secure high-profile convictions.
|
| Fri May 29, 2009 1:36 pm |
|
|
