Regina v Loveridge

[David_Biggins@usermgmt.com]

I think BOTH together is the appropriate response.

The conviction should be quashed.

The enforcement team should go on trial,  with (if found guilty)
sentence proportional to the severity of punishment of the original
crime.

I suspect that the court would be less likely to show "extra deference"
to an officer whose misconduct had caused a case to collapse.

## dave ##

> -----Original Message-----
> From: daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu [mailto:daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 05:55
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Regina v Loveridge
> 
> 
> Tom Thomson wrote:
> >I think a better approach is to ensure that those reeponsible for the
> >obtaining of such material are prosecuted for their unlawful acts.
> 
> At least in the US, this doesn't seem to work very well: The law
> enforcement officers always seem to be treated with extra deference.
> There's no harm in trying, but it doesn't seem to be prudent to
> rely on this as a sole defense against police misconduct.
> 
> This is why immediate quashing of any conviction that relies on
> 'tainted' evidence is a good idea: It gives a powerful incentive
> to the entire law enforcement team not to violate the rules.
> 
> 
>