Letwin wants increased penalties for refusal to decrypt

[Philip Rowlands]

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Owen Lewis wrote:

>Fashion it thus.
>
>Plod has (just about) sufficient evidence against X of drug trafficking (or
>whatever gets you 30 years) to get a case before a jury. The enciphered
>contents of X's PC, if disclosed, will turn his 50:50 chance in front of a
>jury into zilch.

How is this known? What evidence turns a 50:50 case into a dead cert,
that is not compelling evidence in and of itself?

>Is it reasonable that:
>
> - X can opt to refuse to disclose and therefore collect 2yrs max

Yes. To accuse X of a serious crime on lack of compelling evidence, then
impose a jail term of many years solely because X refused to cooperate
with his own prosecution is unjust.

> - That on otherwise identical facts, Y shall be properly convicted
> and sentences and yet X shall walk free for no other reason than he
> has enciphered certain information?

Is it reasonable? No. Is it therefore right to impose long jail terms?
No. You are presupposing X to be guilty.


Cheers,

Phil