Letwin wants increased penalties for refusal to decrypt

[Pete Chown]

Owen Lewis wrote:

> One is normally referred for trial if there is a prima facie case to answer.

The CPS is supposed to pursue cases only if the chance of conviction is
greater than 50%.  If you want to bring a private prosecution, you have
to convince your local bench that you have a case before a summons is
issued.  I think (but am not sure) that in this situation it is a prima
facie case that you must demonstrate.

> The point is that there is simply no logic in supporting (or at least
> acquiescing in search of one area and not of another where the reason to
> search each is equally compelling.

The reason to search each area may be equally compelling.  Now, any
search is oppressive.  In a democracy there is a balancing process which
plays off the likely results of the search against the oppression
created.  It is the degree of oppression that is different with RIP
decryption orders, not the expected results of the search.

This distinction is found throughout the law already. For example, PACE
creates three different procedures for search warrants, depending on the
characteristics of the search.

-- 
Pete