Regina v Loveridge

[Owen Lewis]

-----Original Message-----
From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
[mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Donald ramsbottom
Sent: 03 May 2001 06:51
To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Subject: Regina v Loveridge


In this one illegal video evidence was admitted at trial. The silly thing
is that the other evidence was said to be "overwhelming" so why allow dodgy
evidence in, in the first place. Still it is another example where an LEA
does not abide by the statutory rules or codes of practice, and the courts
have chosen to endorse rather than censure. It does not lead to confidence
in the system or the Laws enacted by Parliament and their associated
"safeguards".  TA,RIPA, and a host of other Acts discussed on this list all
have watchdogs, safeguards and CoPs, but this sort of decision shows how
little weight is actually attached to these things.

The only way to stop this sort of abuse is ensure that any dodgy evidence
is excluded from any trial, and even if the remaining evidence is
"overwhelming" quash any conviction which is tainted by "illegal" evidence.
How can the state expect citizens to abide by its laws when it openly
flouts them and gets away with it.? Real life I suppose, ho hum.

My understanding is that there is case law allowing the prosecution to have
heard (viewed) evidence which itself was unlawfully obtained. No doubt you
can remind me of the precedent. I have yet to hear anyone dispute seriously
that this practice, accepted by the courts in this country as a satisfactory
method of securing a conviction, is anything other than dangerous and
oppressive.
It would be interesting to have a legal opinion as to whether the precedent
cuts both ways, i.e. that a defendant should be allowed to present evidence
unlawfully obtained in his defence. Or that a member of a defence team
should be exculpated for acting unlawfully in obtaining evidence on a
client's behalf? I do rather think that no such interpretation would be
allowed by the courts.
The state reserves to itself powers and devolves to some of its servants
authority to use lawfully powers which are withheld from the public at
large. This may not always be pleasant and does provide one building block
toward a possible tyranny at a future point. However, in many instances, the
benefits that derive to society as a whole from the acceptance of such
partiality are manifest and sufficient to permit the procedures more or less
with good grace.  That said, in the specific under discussion, this tired
old layman is in no doubt that the border between what constitutes justice
and good law on the one hand and lynch law on the other has been well and
truly crossed - to the ultimate detriment and disgrace of us all.
Nevertheless, we may usefully remind ourselves that it is the public who, in
large part, support the use of such measures and ensure that such matter
never become an electoral issue of consequence. We have ourselves to blame.

Owen