Regina v Loveridge/FBI Hack

[Brewis, Mark]

Donald wrote,

 IMHO I just
> think we ought to have a rule similar to the Americans which 
> says, unless
> the evidence is collected legally it is inadmissible. 
> Everyone would know
> where they stood and I realize some guilty parties would go 
> free, but the
> LEAs may then collect evidence as they should and are 
> authorised to do by
> Parliament, rather than doing what they think is necessary 
> and leaving it
> to a judge in a subjective situation to admit or otherwise 
> the evidence in
> question.
> 
Consider the recent actions of the FBI in regard to accessing (dubiously)
data held on computers in foreign jurisdictions - "RE: [ISN] FBI "hack"
raises global security concerns".  The situation in America is not as clear
cut as admissible/not admissible.

External influences do impart a considerable pressure upon the legal process
- the war against drugs, the war against hackers.  Quasi-omnipotent judges,
especially in the American politically-driven appointment system, quite
happily make up the law as they go along when not tightly bound by statute.
Even then, that doesn't always stop them.  Not to malign Lord Denning, but
he wasn't above doing just that - why let the law get in the way of a good
idea?  For every judge who does that with the rights of the individual in
mind, there are others who dance to a different tune, in all jurisdictions.

MB