Recording of lawyer/prisoner consultations

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by muhandis89, Feb 9, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It comes as no surprise to hear that these conversations were (probably) recorded,in more than one prison.

    Remember that when these take place in police stations,after arrest,there have been many instances of such conversations being recorded by police.After all,police stations are police property,so they do,pretty much,what they want there.One southern police force is notorious for this tactic! Walls have ears? Certainly police station ones do!!!
  2. You've got to be a bit naiive to expect that Prisons arent bugged, theyre full of criminals!

    ~It's bloody rude that politicos are up in arms that they were bugged but wouldnt give a toss if it were you or me!
  3. Mark my words, the ramifications of this are unbelievable - huge!

    The court of appeal has already visited this only a couple of years ago, and there's a near certainty that any cases affected are going to be thrown out and convictions cleared!

    Where the court is faced with illegal conduct by police or State prosecutors which is so grave as to threaten or undermine the rule of law itself, the court may readily conclude that it will not tolerate, far less endorse, such a state of affairs and so hold that its duty is to stop the case. This is well supported by R v Horseferry Road Magistrates Court ex p. Bennett[41], to which reference was made in Latif[42]:
    "The speeches in Bennett conclusively establish that proceedings may be stayed in the exercise of the judge's discretion not only where a fair trial is impossible but also where it would be contrary to the public interest in the integrity of the criminal justice system that a trial should take place. An infinite variety of cases could arise."
    We are quite clear that the deliberate interference with a detained suspect's right to the confidence of privileged communications with his solicitor, such as we have found was done here, seriously undermines the rule of law and justifies a stay on grounds of abuse of process, notwithstanding the absence of prejudice consisting in evidence gathered by the Crown as the fruit of police officers' unlawful conduct. Newman J took the same view in Wheel. He had well in mind the gravity of the crime of which the defendant was suspected: "[a] young man has been executed by a brutal shooting"[43]. So of course do we, in this present case. As for prejudice, it is a particular vice of the police conduct in such circumstances as these (as, again, Newman J recognised in Wheel[44]) that the court cannot know whether the police misconduct has in fact yielded fruit in the form of evidence, whether directly or indirectly, without enquiry as to what the covert surveillance revealed; but that would further violate the suspect's right of legal professional privilege.
  4. Fcuk em.
  5. Fcuk who? the dozens of rapists and murderers who are about to get their convictions overturned because the police broke a fundemental rule and principle of law? or the police who broke the law?

    Remember we've been here before - this is bigger than the Birmingham six/Guildford four, this could potentially run into hundreds of convictions overturned!

    This one is big enough to bring down a government!
  6. Fcuk em, if they insist on stupid edicts then justice has to suffer.

    Unless the bugging actually causes an unfair trial then fcuk em,

    bugging evidence cant be used in court so it's for intel only.

    If it cant be used in court then it doesnt matter.

    therefore....... fcuk em.

  7. But the court of appeal has already dealt with that!

    the court cannot know whether the police misconduct has in fact yielded fruit in the form of evidence, whether directly or indirectly, without enquiry as to what the covert surveillance revealed; but that would further violate the suspect's right of legal professional privilege.

    So, although you say feck them, the court is going to HAVE to clear them, as they cannot tell if its given an unfair trial!
  8. No they wont, as bugged conversations arent evidential, and as such cant be produced as evidence.

    Unless Im wrong in which case fcuk em for having a stupid rule which lets criminals go free, another example of the system working against justice.

    The only rule breached here is the bugging of MPs not the bugging of the prison, that was legal and authorised, they caught the MPs conversation by chance apparently.

    Anyway, I personally dont really believe in alot of this confidentiality cr@p (except for Dr/patient) as surely it just means this:

    Mr Criminal : Yeah I did it, now how are you going to get me off.

    Lawyer: Right, these are the legal defences, which one fits...

    I believe the Legal term is.... Fcuk em
  9. When these things are recorded in police stations thay aren't bugged, they are taken openly in amchine that does two copies of the recording and the suspect, or his solicitor, is given a copy.
  10. Some interesting reading here to show just how seriously the court has taken issues such as this in the past, including the grant case

    Particuarly notable is the following comment from the original trial judge:

    JUDGE HONOUR HEATH STATEMENT It is plain that I have not been told the whole truth by several police officers - namely White, Bennett, Owen, Bosworth, Blakey and Dean. There has been an abuse in this case, there has been something so unfair and wrong that I should not allow the prosecution to proceed. Where there has been a deliberate capture of private conversations between a suspect and his lawyer, justice, in my judgement, is affronted in a flagrant gross and grave way.

    and that was upheld by the court of appeal - these are serious, serious things for a judge to be saying, and throwing out murder charges because of the gravity of the breach - this is going to be big!
  11. Interesting along the lines of, "what rights and liberties do you have when in prison"?

    Labrat is correct inasmuch that the legal system could easily see itself following up a large number of cases where it was / is suspected by the convicted prisoner that their' incarceration has been dependant on "evidence" obtained in this way.

    And the cost to the Legal Aid system will be what I wonder?
  12. Given the people who have been subjected to his, Huntley for one. I would be very worried if were in Government right now.

    If he goes free, down comes the Government.
  13. I am no legal eagle but IIRC if a person states to their legal representative that they have commited the offence for which they are due to end up in court (and intend to plead "not guilty" then the solicitor/barrister has 2 choices, either refused to represent them and advise another legal rep or offer no defence in court.

    Feel free to put me right if I am talking out of my Arrse.

  14. The popular view may be along the fcuk 'em lines, but "sadly" the law will favour the "guilty" if there is seen to be a case of evidence being obtained in a way that is not known to the prisoner (are remand prisoners as well in this?) and possibly more potently now, his legal representative.

    I'm not saying I agree with it, but there will be several high-profile cases where the defence teams will be considering today's news with great interest. If the reporting at the time of posting this is accurate, there will be hundreds more cases with lesser known "criminals" seeking appeals.

    There are some high profile cases in the news at the moment - I wonder how many QC's will be cross-examining the Police and CPS at length on how every shred of evidence has been obtained.
  15. I certainly was not talking about formal interviews by police with a lawyer present,but those between a prisoner and the duty solicitor,prior to that event.Sometimes the exercise yard is bugged too.While bugging is not admisable in court,it can certainly 'inform' ongoing CID enquiries!