Courts and bug product

[Nicholas Bohm]

Ian Batten wrote:
> 
> On 14 Feb 2008, at 11:35, 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.
> 
> The obvious objection to that is ``the prosecution have exotic GCHQ 
> technology to establish what is being said from these murky recordings 
> you've given us, we don't''.

Hand over a second set as cleaned up - "equality of arms" under ECHR Art 
6 fair trial.

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