Jack Straw' View

[Donald Ramsbottom]

At 08:38 04/07/00 +0100, you wrote:
>In article <1.5.4.32.20000704064437.00f21bcc@192.168.0.65>, Donald
>Ramsbottom <donald@ramsbottom.co.uk> writes
>>"That case **provides us with a difficulty in respect of this Bill**. A narrow
>>definition of "detection" is **satisfactory in the case of interception**,
>>though
>>we have tried to ensure even here that the law is as clear as possible. But
>>the same formulation of "prevention and detection" exists in each of the
>>five other powers of the Bill where ****we most certainly do want the
>>ph(r)ase to
>>have a wider meaning and to include gathering evidence****.
>
>I'm afraid I read it quite differently. Notwithstanding all the advice
>I've had throughout this process from the HO that they *don't* want to
>have intercept product admissible as evidence.

Well we all read things in different ways. I read it with a lawyers hat on.
If they do not want at some stage to be able to produce as evidence the
data, (and they do not have to it is just an option) why bring up the point
at all. The cases referred to could have been left and Lord BB and  Jack the
Knife have both certified the bill as HR compatible.

>
>What I see here is a problem with the ECHR and the transposed definition
>of "preventing and detecting crime". If you aren't engaged in one of
>these two, then you aren't supposed to be intercepting at all.

What about "Economic well being" or "Interest of the state" they do not have
to have a criminal component. The intercepts can be justified on a number of
grounds, and state security is the catch all which is difficult to rebut.

>
>Now, if you want to benefit from the products of interception after the
>point at which you've noticed the crime took place (the minimalist
>definition of "detecting") then you need to define "prevention and
>detection" to last further into the process than that. 

There is always the case where the pressure is on, and results are needed.
there is a suspect, but very little evidence. If the interception data can
back up say a single, unreliable eyewitness, then the use of such
interception data, may be enough to bring the charge and bring the miscreant
before the beak and seek a remand to allow further investigations to
proceed. I do not say they will always use such interception data, just that
they may.


I looked at Lord BBs excerpt in Hansard and asked  why? Why bring this up at
all. S:16 seems to say most of what S9 of IOCA said. why bring up two legal
precedents which seem to confirm what you want, and then seek to tell
parliament that they are too restrictive. Why specify the use of SS 20-25
specifically. Why mention current practice and say it is too restrictive and
then table a widened definition if the object of the exercise is to restrict
the use of such data and to protect its source. Either it is a monumental
cock up or alternatively they want to have the capability to use such data,
but do not want to come out and say so in a straight forward manner. If the
quotaions given in the last post are available to the QC dealing with the
matter should it reach court, they will give him comfort and succour.

I am afraid I am not in the "know" with the people in the "know" and can
only say that from the declarations made I smell a rat.

I may be very wrong, and it would not be the first time, but if I am, the
question of why? still remains. It is after a HO amendment to widen the
definition, which as far as I can see is pretty all embracing.

On the subject of car number plates yes they do give a pretty good idication
most of the time of the possible whereabouts of an individual at a given
time. if the data could be correlated efficiently ( I do not think there is
a recognition system in place, but again could be wrong), then the use of
such data if not related to a specicific investigation and was used as
database, then I think this would be a breach of the HR/ECHR.



 

Donald Ramsbottom LL.B, BA (Hons).

RAMSBOTTOM & Co. Solicitors
Internet Law & Global Cryptology Law Specialists
5 Seagrove Avenue, Hayling Island, Hants, PO11 9EU, England.
Tel (023) 9246 5931 Fax (023)9246 8349
Ramsbottom & Co is regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of investment
business