Tonto Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 It concludes the device was installed in 1979, the same year the building was completed, and was used to listen to conversations until 1999. This isn't some kind of 70s Sweeney sitcom - this device was in use until 5 years ago. That they are admitting to. There has been legislation in force for decades about client confidentiality - this isn't something just thought about in the last year or so. Telecoms Acts and regulations exist by the score. If it was used for 'training' where are the records? oops... Wonder what was in the rest of the report that the minister didn't read out..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 From the Press Release "He said there was no evidence that conversations between advocates and clients were listened into, and so no officers would be subject to legal proceedings." But he notably doesn't deny that this did happen. "It concludes the device was installed in 1979, the same year the building was completed, and was used to listen to conversations until 1999" Note the absence of the word "interviews" in this quote, although it may be used as a definitive term somewhere else in the report. The only mention of conversations at all is between advocate and client (see earlier extract) Lets assume it did happen, to see how empty the statement about lack of evidence is... The police clearly wouldn't keep a recording or transcript of what they'd overheard, because that would have left them in doo-doo creek. 1) how would suspects know their conversations were being listened to; 2) how would they get evidence if no recordings would exist. Why would it happen and what advantages would there be...? The police would have an advantage of knowing a line of questioning which may prove problematic to the suspect, particularly if the lawyer has been told by his client that he wants the police / prosecution to prove their case or that they've got no evidence - in which case the lawyer has to keep stum and not mislead - or if potentially unfavourable evidence is mentioned (eg. someone else was there when I bottled him) Why doesn't the statement stack up...? As it was a *covert listening device*, the implication seems to be that it used for more than relaying interviews contemporaneously to those listening outside. If it was a *overt listening device* I don't think we'd be having this debate or questions in the house. By *overt device* I mean one which relays recorded interviews 'as live' to people outside. Whether or not suspects knew their recorded interviews were being listened to by others outside is irrelevant. What would be important is that the device turned off when the recorder turned off. BTW the argument about police training purposes is tosh. Surely the recorded tapes of the the interview fulfil that purpose. Is there any significance in the fact that Culverhouse was appointed Cheif Constable in 1999? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 The Police have to obtain your permision to record any conversation. written or electronic. They must inform you of your rights before arrest. Any statement, written or electronic has to be signed by all parties, failure to do so makes the statement invalid. If you suspect any wrong doing you have the rights to make a written complaint to the Police Complaints Commision. If you make a complaint against an officer during an investigation, that officer can NO longer take any further action in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gidderwook Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 The Police have to obtain your permision to record any conversation. written or electronic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No they don't. Provided that you are cautioned, they have a right to use anything you say as evidence should the case come to court. There is no requirement for them to ask your permission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 The Police have to obtain your permision to record any conversation. written or electronic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No they don't. Provided that you are cautioned, they have a right to use anything you say as evidence should the case come to court. There is no requirement for them to ask your permission <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did I not say that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveller Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 from the latest news reports its a bit "strange" that when the former Chief Constable signed an order regarding the use of the listening device then how come it wasn't "force policy" ? If the Chief doesn't decide "force policy" who does?? and if the Chief signed an order regarding the use of teh device and the order wasn't followed then what was the point of signing an order regarding its use in the first place??? What is going on up there? Does the present Chief expect his officers to do as he says or not?????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gidderwook Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 The Police have to obtain your permision to record any conversation. written or electronic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No they don't. Provided that you are cautioned, they have a right to use anything you say as evidence should the case come to court. There is no requirement for them to ask your permission <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Did I not say that <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No you didn't! They don't have to ask your permission. They have to tel you what's going on. There is a big difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kite Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 where is the difference. If you dont want your conversation recorded and the police just 'tell you whats going on' you just keep your mouth shut and they only record their own voices. in practise its the same as permision or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gidderwook Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 where is the difference. If you dont want your conversation recorded and the police just 'tell you whats going on' you just keep your mouth shut and they only record their own voices. in practise its the same as permision or not <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The difference is that since the new caution was introduced, it has in many cases abolished the right to silence. If something is not mentioned in an interview which could reasonably have been expected to be mentioned then the jury are entitled to draw adverse inference from that silence. They don't have to, but they are entitled to. There aren't that many people who don't say anything in an interview any more because of this but I still maintain they don't have to ask permission Edited due to the fact that I can't type! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 I think I may have missed the point here. If you were innocent and the police listened to you talking to your advocate then they are unlikely to find out any thing that they can use to prove that you are guilty ? so thats not really a problem is it. And if you were guilty and the police listened to your talking to your advocate and heard something that they could use to prove you were guilty then thats not a problem for the rest of us is it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonto Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 The problem is that whether you are innocent or guilty it is against the law to listen in to conversations with your legal representative - without a warrant. And to say on the radio this morning - as the minister did - that some officers were not aware of a policy on this that went back to 1981, just beggars belief. Police officers have to take exams about all kinds of things and dont tell me that covert listening devices don't form part of at least one. What other policies are they going to say some officers not aware of - that male police officers can't search female prisoners? What utter tosh - the next excuse will be that the sniffer dog ate their homework. Sorry but this kind of publicity makes it look worse and worse for the Police - where are their own PR people? They surely cannot do any worse than what is happening now - someone should tell the Minister to stop digging... (sorry by digging I mean he's making it worse - just incase anyone misunderstood me!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonto Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 on the govt website now... http://www.gov.im/lib/news/dha/responsetothecel.xml In addition of the 80 plus officers interviewed no officer had any knowledge of any Force Policy which provided an authorised process or procedure concerning the use of the devices discovered in the old CID Room. How is this possible? Dont they talk to one another? What happens when they go on courses about this kind of thing - do they just put their fingers in their ears and sing lalalalalala? What about their union rep - didn't they have any reservations about possible issues which could arise? sorry, call me a cynic - but how much of my intelligence is there left to insult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.