IPA s.56 (Exclusion of matters from legal proceedings etc.

[Roland Perry]

In article <040b01d24fbe$624e60d0$26eb2270$@liddicott.com>, Ben 
Liddicott <ben at liddicott.com> writes

>The Register has an article up about this today:
> 
>The Investigatory Powers Act allows the State to tell lies in court
>Is this correct, or is it overstating the case? And if so by how much?

El Reg has got the wrong end of the stick (again).

The rule they mention (which has existed in RIPA since 2000) is that you 
cannot use intercept evidence in court. Not that you can use it, but lie 
about where it came from.

The point of the rule isn't to stitch up defendants, but it's to protect 
the security service's tradecraft by preventing them getting into the 
situation of having to explain in open[1] court how such evidence was 
obtained.

What they have to do is find *other* evidence to prove their case, once 
the intercept evidence has put them on the right trail.

[1] The exemptions are therefore closed court proceedings. Whether such
     proceedings are a good or bad thing is a somewhat separate question,
     but we are where we are, and they do exist.
-- 
Roland Perry