Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Ord_Sgt, Dec 6, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Because unlike the United States in which tainted evidence is excluded as 'fruit from the poisoned tree', entrapment is not actually against the law if confined within proper limits. There is no system in the Kingdom under which there is an automatic right to exclude evidence which has been illegally or improperly obtained but the court retains a discretion to exclude such evidence if it considers that it has exceeded certain bounds.
To this end, recent guidance was given in Attorney General's Reference No 3 of 2000  UKHL 53.
The English law on entrapment has not been modified by the right to a fair trial under art 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (as set out in Sch 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998). Under English law, entrapment is not a substantive defence to criminal proceedings, but where a defendant can show entrapment the court may stay the proceedings as an abuse of process or exclude evidence pursuant to section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Of those two remedies, the grant of a stay, rather than the exclusion of evidence at the trial, should, as a matter of principle, normally be regarded as the appropriate response in a case of entrapment.
A prosecution founded on entrapment is an abuse of the court's process. Police conduct which brings about state-created crime is unacceptable and improper, and to prosecute in such circumstances is an affront to the public conscience.
In deciding whether conduct amounts to state-created crime, the overall consideration is whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the conduct of the police or other law enforcement agency is so seriously improper as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Circumstances of particular relevance are the nature of the offence, the reason for the particular police operation, and the nature and extent of police participation in the crime. The greater the inducement held out by the police, and the more forceful or persistent the police overtures, the more readily may a court conclude that the police have overstepped the boundary. It will not, however, normally be regarded as objectionable for the police to behave as would an ordinary customer of a trade, whether lawful or unlawful, being carried on by the defendant.
What if BNP cllrs do act fairly for all the people ?
And if BNP gives as its reason for refusing an application for membership that they believe the applicant was ill motivated ?
Trevor Phillips could try getting white officers to apply to the Assn of Black Police Officers or protestant officers to the Catholic Police Guild or white electricians to apply to Delta ?
I had to laugh at the Race Relations people position that they feared a backlash from the far right.
This whole country faced the backlash of the far right when it stood alone against the ultimate racist Mr Hitler.
The least immigrants to UK should do is to try to live up to our great and superior traditions.
All organisations, be it the 'Wheetappers and Shunters" or the "Mess-Tin Preservation Society" have rules which regulate the criteria for joining and for removal if its conditions of membership are broken.
If an individual is found in breach of the terms of his or her membership, providing those rules are objectively reasonable then those in default are subject to sanction. As long as the rules are applied fairly and reasonably regardless of ethnicity, then it is difficult to impeach any organisation on the grounds that it has acted in breach of procedural propriety, or of failing to apply natural justice or has acted irrationally.
All organisations of whatever persuasion have individuals who will want to join for improper motives and most have procedures for detecting and dealing with them.
I think you will find that the courts in this country are pretty even-handed and are well able to detect those instances where the legal process is being abused in furtherance of political ends as many have found out to their cost(s)!
In Neue Arbeits STAZI state, any action is permissible to root out 'thought crime'.
I agree very much with the sentiment but it is simply not true that Labour are responsible for introducing a system under which illegal or improperly obtained evidence is both relevant and admissible in Criminal Trials. The Kingdom has a long and venerable history in this area:
âIt matters not how you get it if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence.â
(per Crompton J in R. v. Leatham (1861) 8 Cox CC 498 at 501).
(per Crompton J in R. v. Leatham (1861) 8 Cox CC 498 at 501). I did once use this at DCM in days when Judges Rules were The Way It Was Done. After trial within trial, accepted but proviso it had been obtained by trick not quite amounting to duress. He went down.
Indeed, but my ire was directed more at the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I am not an expert on this but someone who is tells me that the offence can't be created but can be "laid on". For example if police know that so and so is selling drugs an under cover officer can be introduced to him and buy and the offence is complete.
What TG is suggesting is in effect a test purchase operation, and if they allready had intelligence that individual councillors were being discriminatory would, i would submit to the court, be totally legal.
Because he's a black racist..pure, simples, evident..!!
I would concur that view. The ridiculous situation that here arises is that most operations of this character are, by their very nature conducted in secret.
In this case, the world and his wife are on notice.
If I were arguing for the Commission and for its admissibility in evidence before a judge I would point out that such evidence that has been obtained is more probabative than prejudicial since the organisation targeted has been given ample opportunity to accommodate changes in its application procedures, having been put on notice by the extent of the publicity involved.
Surley they would have to wait until someone actually tried to join the BMP and were turned down for racist reasons and then complained to have adequate evidence of an illegal act to justify the entrapment ( Test purchase operation).
Didnt a judge in more recent times say the same thing?
'Evidence is evidence, howsoever obtained.' (Pickles?)
Could the BNP simply refuse membership to anyone on the grounds of being mentally unsound? (as anyone of colour would likely be if they wanted to join the BNP!*)
ISTRC from my dim and distant past when I was involved in local politics, it always attracted the 'eccentrics' and bin rummagers. We used to routinely decline their membership applications on those grounds and it was according to rules we had written down somewhere. Were we acting illegally? Would it be illegal now?
*Come to think of it anyone white would likely need their bumps felt too!
That's no way to talk about Whet!
Separate names with a comma.