Juries 'should hear phone taps' to nail crime gangs

[David Hansen]

On 11 Sep 2002 at 11:38, Charles Lindsey wrote:

> The technical means of doing it (sophisticated or
> not) are not of particular interest, and bringing evidence before a
> court that an intercepted communication contained such and such

In what form would this "evidence" be?

> does
> not require divulging the technical details of how it was done (since,
> as I said, there is no mystery about where it was obtained). Also, the
> quaility of the intercept is likely to be much higher.

How are people to know that the "evidence" is other than a concoction 
of someone who wishes to see someone imprisoned (for good or bad 
motives does not matter)?

There are plenty of examples of dubious "evidence" in a number of the 
famous legal balls ups. One may recall the "scientists" involved in 
the Birmingham Pub Bombing and other cases. These "experts" worked 
for the government side of the case. They were not punished in any 
way, despite being responsible for the false imprisonment of a number 
of people. They did a police and retired with their pensions hardly 
affected.

Of course the Home Office seem to believe that such things never 
happen, but who believes anything they say?


--
  David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will *always* explain why I revoke a key, unless the UK 
 government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.