Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Ian G Batten]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, David Hansen wrote:

> On 24 Oct 2002 at 0:06, James Hammerton wrote:
> 
> > > The natural reading is qualified by the Code.
> > 
> > Is the code legally binding?
> 
> Even if it is we know that it contains no sanctions for disobeying 
> it. Thus someone who "accidentally" "forgot" that the "economic well-
> being" stuff was qualified by this "Code" would know that they could 
> make such a "mistake" with impunity.

You are implying that a law enforcement office, a civil servant or a
local government officer might act dishonestly.  This cannot be the
case, and to have laws that admit the possibility would be clearly
offensive.  One only has to consider the wise words of Lord Denning,
ruling on the appeals of the Birmingham Six, to understand that doubting
the probity of officials is unacceptible.

Turning the sarcasm down a bit, Simon Watkin used the example of Alison
Halford to claim that the laws were becoming better.  One might turn
that around and point out that the Halford case shows that the police
will use covert surveillance for reasons unconnected with the pursuit of
lawful objectives, in the knowledge that no action will be taken against
them.

ian