December 11, 2009


I don't get this

A plan to allow phone tap evidence in courts was left in tatters today as a review said it was unworkable.

In a victory for MI5, Gordon Brown's proposal to introduce intercept evidence at criminal trials was quietly shelved as a report said it would cost billions. Critics said the decision marked another creeping extension of the Government's secret justice agenda.

It means that potentially important information gained via phone tap recordings and email interceptions will not be available to juries.

Surely if someone implicates themselves over the phone the bloody jury should hear about it. Why on earth not?



Umar Abdullah said...

hi dave,

I actually (bizarrely) agree in principle. Id much rather have a situation where the jury can hear all the evidence rather than these "closed intelligence sessions" that exist.

However, in practice it doesnt work because I just feel they can't be trusted. Italy is a classic case in point. They had intercept evidence admitted in one high profile case, but the spanish courts threw it out and said they lied about the content of the tapes, and also cast doubts on the authenticity. Look it up ( Rabeh Osman case ).



DAVE BONES said...

Lying about contents of a tape would not be possible were the jury allowed to hear tapes for themselves. I can't understand the arguments against using phone tap evidence. If I wanted to know if someone was doing something dangerous I would tap their phone. If a person said

"I am going to bomb x next saturday"

on the phone and I arrested them I would want to put this phone conversation before a jury. People can already implicate themselves by being on the phone to known criminals and terror suspects why should a jury not hear what they have to say as the technology is available?

The arguments against phone tapping here don't explain anything.

Jan said...

Apparently there were problems with intercept evidence when some mock terror trials were carried out. (Aren't they all mock??)

The problems arose with the material that had to be disclosed to the defence..

I agree Dave, if there is evidence that implicates someone, then use it, otherwise stop fannying around.

I think that the use of intercept evidence would create problems for the police/security services as it may show too much of the way they work thesedays.

Spyblog has something here.

DAVE BONES said...

Thanks. Yeah, I have never really been into conspiracy theories, but these reasons why not are evasive, ridiculous and just leave you wondering what the real reasons are.

Jan said...

Well Dave, the whole kit and caboodle of the 'justice' served on (mock) terrorists is a conspiracy theory.

Look at the amount of 'terrowists' who have been convicted with 'conspiracy to murder', 'conspiracy to cause explosions ', or 'conspiracy to commit public nuisance', & you'll be forced to, I'm afraid, believe in 'conspiracy theories'.....

Indigobusiness said...

I'll admit to being interested in conspiracy facts.


***Merry Christmas***