Simon Asks about Intrusion Justification

[Mike Brown]

In message <0211072249322W.25211@osborne> Adrian Midgley wrote:

> On Tuesday 29 October 2002 12:02, you wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:
> > > Short of being caught in the act, the point of an investigation is to
> > > establish the guilty from the innocent.
> >
> > No, that's the point of a trial in a court.  An investigation by the
> > police obtains information to lay before a court.  It's nice to know
> > that the Home Office regard the police as the arbiters of guilt,
> > however: can we quote you on that?
> 
> I think that is unfair comment actually.
> 
> The Court determines guilt/innocence.

Surely not.  The only verdicts in an English court are Guilty or
Not Guilty.  The Not Guilty verdict only implies that the LEAs have
not managed to adduce enough evidence to convince the court of the
accused's guilt against the 'beyond reasonable doubt' criterion.

Hence an innocent person is very likely to be left with a slur on
their public character and an LEA record prompting repeated further
investigations.  The latter possibility provides a very good reason
for ensuring that all LEA inquiries involving intrusion and not
resulting in prosecution should be reported promptly to the victim,
with a clear line of redress and a proper mechanism for investigation
of impropriety and punishment of malfeasance.

Regards to all,
Mike.
-- 
M J D Brown: 2 Carters Close, Bretton, Peterborough PE3 9AW, England