'Person' as in Section 13

[David Swarbrick]

In message <002901bee075$557e7960$86dbac3e@Cmt>, Tom Thomson
<cmt@btinternet.com> writes
>
>> 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. 

It is for each individual to establish that he has complied with the
notice.
>There's clearly no way to make a criminal charge stick against any
>individual, 

Why not. He was asked for a key, and has not delivered it - or has he.
If the key does not work, then is it not for him to establish that he
can have done no more? 

>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


-- 
David Swarbrick, Solicitor, West Yorkshire
Web: http://www.swarb.co.uk/  david@swarb.freeuk.com Tel: +44(0)1484 722531
Home of the law-index (9800+ case digests).  IT and IP Law and contracts.
The Law Society regulates us in the conduct of investment business