Courts and bug product

[Nicholas Bohm]

Charles Lindsey wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:33:49 -0000, Roland Perry 
> <lists@internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <47B25467.5050100@zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother 
>> <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> writes
>>> "The alleged burdensome nature of the procedure" - - nonsense.
>>
>> I'm not following this closely, but I'm sure I heard a comment in the 
>> media that allowing intercept evidence would require a complete 
>> transcript of all the intercepts being given to both sides in the 
>> case. I suppose that's because the defence would otherwise claim that 
>> the intercept was being selectively quoted [1]. ...
> 
> Surely you just provide them with the boring tapes, and let them listen 
> and transcribe it themselves.

That was exactly my reaction.  (Though why in this century we keep 
talking about tapes I'm not clear: surely it's all in digital files 
these days?)

There will no doubt be problems with unintelligible recordings, but the 
defence team is likely to find it at least as easy as the CPS to find 
people who recognise and understand the languages involved.

Nicholas
-- 
Salkyns, Great Canfield, Takeley,
Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone  01279 870285    (+44 1279 870285)
Mobile  07715 419728    (+44 7715 419728)

PGP public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF