'Person' as in Section 13

[Tom Thomson]

> This brings up an interesting half-way house in the requirement that keys
be
> released when demanded by the police.  Suppose, for example, I have enough
> information to generate a key if, and only if, I act in collusion with any
> two other people picked from a group of five.  Do I possess the key within
> the meaning of the Act?   If not, who does?   Any three people of the six
> acting together surely possess the key, but no individual or pair can
> possibly create the key.

It brings up an even more interesting question: suppose any five from seven
can deliver the key, and each of the five claims to deliver his component,
but the resulting key will not decrypt the message.  Then it's clear that at
least three are lying about ther component, but four could be telling the
truth.  There's clearly no way to make a criminal charge stick against any
individual, and even in a civil case it can be argued that 4 have complied
and 3 have3n't so on balance of probabilities any individual is one of the
three. (This is different from 3 out of 5 because in the 3/5 case it's clear
that the majority are lying and that means the balance of probablities about
any individualk is different - in theory that's irrelevant in criminal law,
but even there it isn't irrelevant in practice in England and Wales [but
probably is in Scotland], and it's definitely relevant in civil law unless I
misunderstand Enlish law badly).