Simon Asks about Intrusion Justification

[Ian G Batten]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:

> > If I'm falsely accused - or implicated
> > by innocent mistake in an investigation - of terrorism, and the
> > investigator concludes that I'm laundering my book royalties through
> > a Jersey back account and not declaring them, then it is unjust if he
> > tips off the Revenue.
> 
> That's your opinion.  Personally I don't agree.  You can't possibly saying
> that where an investigation of x reveals evidence of y (where x and y are
> criminal conduct investigated by separate agencies) that the investigator of
> x not pass that on?  You surely wouldn't say it if x were extortion and y
> were drug trafficking so why would you say it if x were terrorism and y were
> cheating the revenue?  

Then your whole mechanism of ``proportionality'' goes out of the window.
Let's assume we do not regard underpaying of 500 quid of tax as
justifying covert surveillance.  If we don't, presume some other crime
which doesn't justify it.  Now, all the authorities under your doctrine
need to do is say ``I think so and so is a terrorist'', perform the
surveillance, then say ``OK, they're not a terrorist, but they are
fiddling their income tax'' and proceed to court.  Any investigation of
anyone for any purpose can be justified if the evidence is always
usable.

Either you are being deliberately disingenuous or you really cannot see
that (evidence of X gathered while looking for Y) is one scenario where
both X and Y would of themselves justify surveillance, but another
scenario where Y would justify it but X would not.  (Tax Evasion,
Terrorism) is a different class of tuple to (Extortion, Drug
Trafficing).

> I wonder.

After the first time someone is nicked for smoking dope in their own
house and it turns out they were being watched by MI5 as a terrorist
suspect, the government will just look pathetic.  Fill in your own
choice of anachronistic laws here (anal sex between consenting men and
women prior to the last Criminal Justice Bill, perhaps).

> > I think we need to revisit the whole issue of whether illegally
> > obtained evidence can be used in court. That may be needed in order
> > to remove a big incentive for mission creep
> 
> If that is a concern in relation to privacy then I'll take it on board.
> There seems little point developing a regime for which there is a broad
> consensus if investigators can flout it and get illegally obtained material
> into court.

They currently can.

ian