Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Ian G Batten]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:
> Authorising officers, and in the case of the most intrusive covert
> techniques that means Chief Constables, are uniquely qualified to make these
> sorts of operational decisions _not_ the judiciary.  

That's a popular line of the police: ``we know a wrong 'un when we see
them, and we don't need the courts letting off criminals''.  It's why we
have courts.

> They are fully
> accountable to the Commissioners for the decisions they take.

Could you outline what ``fully accountable'' means in this context?
What penalities attach to a chief constable who authorises wrongful
surveillance?  Will he be allowed to use the defence that he was misled
by his junior staff?  And if so, what purpose does he serve beyond a
rubber stamp?

> You mean the subset of criminals who are corrupt investigators.  Point
> taken.

ian