Fatal Hit & Run

[Numbnuts]

39 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Yes. I transferred in 1998 and had my first promotion in 2002 to a temp rank. I was made inspector in 2005. Career sort of plateaued at that point!

Apology as forgotton you had come from across.

And yes nothing was made public about payments . 

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by Numbnuts

[John Wright]

11 hours ago, New Broom said:

 

Almost everything about this forum is comical - satire at its' best. Ir at least would be if there was anything comical about it. Particularly your so-called moderation.

One of the few honest and honourable Manx advocates had the courage to investigate and challenge the appallingly corrupt 'police station bugging case'. David Sherlock eventually proved interview rooms had ben 'bugged' allowing police to listen to legally privileged conversations between suspects and their advocates, thereby often fatally compromising their defence. A truly outrageous occurrence but not unexpected in a jurisdiction as corrupt as the Isle of Man.

Whilst the police may well have been able to avoid universal blame it is laughable to suggest it was the work of 'one bad apple' - it was a professional 'bugging' set-up that would have been a conspiracy to have implemented. David was unable to prove how long it had been going on but suspected it had been for a long time, possibly years.

He was subsequently hounded by the Manx police force generally, almost to his death.

Mr Wright - you are an apologist for this corrupt system, which very much continues..

 

 

I’ll deal with your views of me first. I am not, and never have been an apologist for any system. But I work alongside the system. I recognise its weaknesses. I’ve worked to hold the system to account. The court and police duty advocate schemes were an initiative I pushed for, against resistance from AG’s, police and law society. From well before Tony Teare/Corrine Bentley, which was the start of official recognition of the need for change.

As for moderating, sorry I don’t meet your approval. There are three of us. It’s not all down to me.  If you don’t like the house style you’ve got other options. If you want a face to face chat about what you see as wrong, or how things could be improved, I’d not be averse.

As for the rest of your post, and without being in anyway an apologist, you’re wrong, on so many levels, factual and the assumptions and conclusions.

Lets start with David. Nice guy. Never an advocate. An English solicitor working in financial and corporate advice. He only involved himself in the “bugging” scandal when, due to his drinking, no one on island would employ him. It was sad to see a bright and intelligent man kill himself with alcohol.

By the time he involved himself the facts were known. He exposed nothing. He had his own run ins with the police. He tried to put together a group action to claim damages on behalf of defendants who had been snooped on and had their defences wrecked. 

I don’t know if anyone came forward, but no case was successfully brought. And that’s because, egregious though having a consultation/interview room bugged was, there was never going to be any damage, other that to confidence in the police and their standing, when the bugging came into the open.

I’ve acted in criminal cases for 40 years. The CID interview room, at the end of the CID office, had a flimsy door, with officers earwigging on the other side. Forget the microphone ( and I don’t accept Derek’s training/supervision line ), neither I nor any other advocate practising criminal law and advising clients in that room would have discussed anything detrimental to the defence of a client. We worked on the assumption that we would be overheard, although not bugged.

You know, when advising a client, in custody, Police Station Duty Advocate for Dummies or Police Station Advice 101 tells us that the client is never advised to say anything in interview unless it improves their position. Further we don’t ask, or want to know if the client “did it”. That could cause all sorts of problems for advocate, client and continuing representation. Most of what we do is going through police disclosure with the client, advising on interview strategy. Especially highlighting and analysing the weaknesses in police disclosure.

So, if Forbes listened in he, or his colleagues wouldn’t have heard much, certainly nothing earth shattering, or defence compromising. Nothing they couldn’t hear by putting a glass against the wall or an ear against the door.

The custody and interview arrangements in the 80’s and 90’s were institutionally wholly inadequate. It took the Police Powers & Procedures and taping of interviews to make those changes. And that came hand in hand with duty advocates, time limits, statutory safeguards.

And it’s still not right. Ask Derek. I’ve been campaigning about one prejudicial area since well before he retired, again without law society support. I’ll get there in the end.

So, when Forbes was arrested on all sorts of dishonesty stuff, expenses, missing evidence, he didn’t get a big payout. I think he eventually resigned before changing his plea.

But in the investigation someone tried to implicate a senior officer. Warrants under the Interception of Communications legislation were issued in respect of the officers communications. He challenged in the Tribunal. Then it went to court. Long Deemster Doyle judgment. Appeal. That officer wasn’t implicated in the bugging scandal. He was collateral damage in the criminal proceedings that brought Forbes down. And yes, his position became untenable and my recollection is he left with an undisclosed settlement and pension rights preserved.

All I’m doing is setting out the factual matrix. It’s as I recall it. My recollection is different to yours. But I’m not apologising for the police, Forbes or anyone else.

[Annoymouse]

So I’ve just seen the latest update on 3FM (a small video clip with reporter Jason Roberts which I can’t link here) it was said in court that the taxi driver actually dropped Carolyn off at her address, reversed over her and drove off in panic.

As with a lot of these cases it always leaves me with more questions than answers, given there is a need to avoid speculation I’ll keep my trap shut but wow, that has definitely shocked me.

[New Broom]

13 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

Yes. I transferred in 1998 and had my first promotion in 2002 to a temp rank. I was made inspector in 2005. Career sort of plateaued at that point!

Having read John’s interjection, it has joined some dots. 

The ‘bugging of interview rooms was done for legitimate purposes - downstream monitoring where another detective could listen in to provide real time analysis against a wider view. The flaw in that was at the time the practice was to have suspects take legal advice in the same room, so the clear and absolutely correct inference was that that privileged advice could be listened in to. It was the reason that when the new custody suite was designed there were specific rooms which had no cameras or audio monitoring in so that advocates could give counsel with confidence that they were not overheard. There were enhanced panic alarms in there too to provide safety. We actually even provided a separate advocates office so they could keep their library in there.

The case that led up to this was I think I am correct in was the expenses offences. A supervisor was also arrested. There were procedures that were basically in breach of surveillance legislation and his human rights were seriously compromised. He quite correctly challenged these serious breaches and just like a member of the public he received reparation. He left with his reputation intact. The level of compensation was never made Public to my recollection.

The officer subject of the core issue was convicted and went to jail. He died a few years ago.

The ‘bugging’ issue came about as a result of the Chief, Mike Culverhouse asking whether innthe light of his nefarious activities was there anything that might even come close to undermining the prosecution or reputation of the force if the officer brought it to light? It was under his leadership that the force started to address some of its skeletons in closets.

and it was a long time ago, but as I was lecturing about today, the damage done lingers a long time. Orgreave, Brixton, Hillsborough. And of course, Douglas.

Evening Derek

As far as I am concerned you are a mostly decent bloke, and copper.

[ content removed following report of defamation ]

Best

NB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[New Broom]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

I’ll deal with your views of me first. I am not, and never have been an apologist for any system. But I work alongside the system. I recognise its weaknesses. I’ve worked to hold the system to account. The court and police duty advocate schemes were an initiative I pushed for, against resistance from AG’s, police and law society. From well before Tony Teare/Corrine Bentley, which was the start of official recognition of the need for change.

As for moderating, sorry I don’t meet your approval. There are three of us. It’s not all down to me.  If you don’t like the house style you’ve got other options. If you want a face to face chat about what you see as wrong, or how things could be improved, I’d not be averse.

As for the rest of your post, and without being in anyway an apologist, you’re wrong, on so many levels, factual and the assumptions and conclusions.

Lets start with David. Nice guy. Never an advocate. An English solicitor working in financial and corporate advice. He only involved himself in the “bugging” scandal when, due to his drinking, no one on island would employ him. It was sad to see a bright and intelligent man kill himself with alcohol.

By the time he involved himself the facts were known. He exposed nothing. He had his own run ins with the police. He tried to put together a group action to claim damages on behalf of defendants who had been snooped on and had their defences wrecked. 

I don’t know if anyone came forward, but no case was successfully brought. And that’s because, egregious though having a consultation/interview room bugged was, there was never going to be any damage, other that to confidence in the police and their standing, when the bugging came into the open.

I’ve acted in criminal cases for 40 years. The CID interview room, at the end of the CID office, had a flimsy door, with officers earwigging on the other side. Forget the microphone ( and I don’t accept Derek’s training/supervision line ), neither I nor any other advocate practising criminal law and advising clients in that room would have discussed anything detrimental to the defence of a client. We worked on the assumption that we would be overheard, although not bugged.

You know, when advising a client, in custody, Police Station Duty Advocate for Dummies or Police Station Advice 101 tells us that the client is never advised to say anything in interview unless it improves their position. Further we don’t ask, or want to know if the client “did it”. That could cause all sorts of problems for advocate, client and continuing representation. Most of what we do is going through police disclosure with the client, advising on interview strategy. Especially highlighting and analysing the weaknesses in police disclosure.

So, if Forbes listened in he, or his colleagues wouldn’t have heard much, certainly nothing earth shattering, or defence compromising. Nothing they couldn’t hear by putting a glass against the wall or an ear against the door.

The custody and interview arrangements in the 80’s and 90’s were institutionally wholly inadequate. It took the Police Powers & Procedures and taping of interviews to make those changes. And that came hand in hand with duty advocates, time limits, statutory safeguards.

And it’s still not right. Ask Derek. I’ve been campaigning about one prejudicial area since well before he retired, again without law society support. I’ll get there in the end.

So, when Forbes was arrested on all sorts of dishonesty stuff, expenses, missing evidence, he didn’t get a big payout. I think he eventually resigned before changing his plea.

But in the investigation someone tried to implicate a senior officer. Warrants under the Interception of Communications legislation were issued in respect of the officers communications. He challenged in the Tribunal. Then it went to court. Long Deemster Doyle judgment. Appeal. That officer wasn’t implicated in the bugging scandal. He was collateral damage in the criminal proceedings that brought Forbes down. And yes, his position became untenable and my recollection is he left with an undisclosed settlement and pension rights preserved.

All I’m doing is setting out the factual matrix. It’s as I recall it. My recollection is different to yours. But I’m not apologising for the police, Forbes or anyone else.

 

As for you 'advocate' Wright - don't make me/us laugh! (rolling laughter emoji! 😉

 

 

 

[Max Power]

7 hours ago, New Broom said:

Evening Derek

As far as I am concerned you are a mostly decent bloke, 

Best

NB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose ignorance doesn't mean that you're not intelligent?

[New Broom]

27 minutes ago, New Broom said:

 

As for you 'advocate' Wright - don't make me/us laugh! (rolling laughter emoji! 😉

 

 

 

On reflection/re-reading, I am being too harsh. It is undoubtedly true that some Manx-qualified advocates have attempted to challenge this clearly unfit-for-purpose system. If you are amongst them, well done. Please press harder..

[Numbnuts]

2 hours ago, Manx17 said:

What happened to that case with the fella up in Manor Park found with large sums of money  and lots of offices got closed down and searched. Was there ever an outcome or is it still on going? 

Think its over and he paid money agreed to be due to powers that be. 

Quite a sum to be honest but probably less than it should have been .

[Derek Flint]

Hi @New Broom

your statement is incorrect, and libelous.

Please take this opportunity to remove it, and apologise

Edited April 5, 2022 by Derek Flint

[Kopek]

This is a public forum, we are not obliged to be here. If we chose to do so, then perhaps we have to take it on the chin, issue a rebuttal and move on?

The last person to take this stance is not highly thought of on here!

 

Also, you and others have rather highjacked this thread, many might think that is not appropriate?

[AOR]

To be naive is one thing. To continue wearing the issue rose-tinted spectacles is another. The mixture of both is a bit worrying.

[Kopek]

13 hours ago, AOR said:

To continue wearing the issue rose-tinted spectacles is another

What has John Lennon got to do with this???

[New Broom]

On 4/4/2022 at 8:05 PM, John Wright said:

I’ll deal with your views of me first. I am not, and never have been an apologist for any system. But I work alongside the system. I recognise its weaknesses. I’ve worked to hold the system to account. The court and police duty advocate schemes were an initiative I pushed for, against resistance from AG’s, police and law society. From well before Tony Teare/Corrine Bentley, which was the start of official recognition of the need for change.

As for moderating, sorry I don’t meet your approval. There are three of us. It’s not all down to me.  If you don’t like the house style you’ve got other options. If you want a face to face chat about what you see as wrong, or how things could be improved, I’d not be averse.

As for the rest of your post, and without being in anyway an apologist, you’re wrong, on so many levels, factual and the assumptions and conclusions.

Lets start with David. Nice guy. Never an advocate. An English solicitor working in financial and corporate advice. He only involved himself in the “bugging” scandal when, due to his drinking, no one on island would employ him. It was sad to see a bright and intelligent man kill himself with alcohol.

By the time he involved himself the facts were known. He exposed nothing. He had his own run ins with the police. He tried to put together a group action to claim damages on behalf of defendants who had been snooped on and had their defences wrecked. 

I don’t know if anyone came forward, but no case was successfully brought. And that’s because, egregious though having a consultation/interview room bugged was, there was never going to be any damage, other that to confidence in the police and their standing, when the bugging came into the open.

I’ve acted in criminal cases for 40 years. The CID interview room, at the end of the CID office, had a flimsy door, with officers earwigging on the other side. Forget the microphone ( and I don’t accept Derek’s training/supervision line ), neither I nor any other advocate practising criminal law and advising clients in that room would have discussed anything detrimental to the defence of a client. We worked on the assumption that we would be overheard, although not bugged.

You know, when advising a client, in custody, Police Station Duty Advocate for Dummies or Police Station Advice 101 tells us that the client is never advised to say anything in interview unless it improves their position. Further we don’t ask, or want to know if the client “did it”. That could cause all sorts of problems for advocate, client and continuing representation. Most of what we do is going through police disclosure with the client, advising on interview strategy. Especially highlighting and analysing the weaknesses in police disclosure.

So, if Forbes listened in he, or his colleagues wouldn’t have heard much, certainly nothing earth shattering, or defence compromising. Nothing they couldn’t hear by putting a glass against the wall or an ear against the door.

The custody and interview arrangements in the 80’s and 90’s were institutionally wholly inadequate. It took the Police Powers & Procedures and taping of interviews to make those changes. And that came hand in hand with duty advocates, time limits, statutory safeguards.

And it’s still not right. Ask Derek. I’ve been campaigning about one prejudicial area since well before he retired, again without law society support. I’ll get there in the end.

So, when Forbes was arrested on all sorts of dishonesty stuff, expenses, missing evidence, he didn’t get a big payout. I think he eventually resigned before changing his plea.

But in the investigation someone tried to implicate a senior officer. Warrants under the Interception of Communications legislation were issued in respect of the officers communications. He challenged in the Tribunal. Then it went to court. Long Deemster Doyle judgment. Appeal. That officer wasn’t implicated in the bugging scandal. He was collateral damage in the criminal proceedings that brought Forbes down. And yes, his position became untenable and my recollection is he left with an undisclosed settlement and pension rights preserved.

All I’m doing is setting out the factual matrix. It’s as I recall it. My recollection is different to yours. But I’m not apologising for the police, Forbes or anyone else.

John

Your a/c of this appears more accurate than mine - if so I stand corrected.

I’ll take you up on the 1:1 - shall mail you.

NB

[WTF]

8 minutes ago, Manx17 said:

I don’t know if it’s just me, I’ve just seen something that made me feel sick to my stomach. The partner of the person who knocked down that poor lady and left her to die is selling all the contents of their flat. I know she might need the money for a new start but I think it’s sinister. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to use a plate or fork or sleep in a bed of a killer. It should be put on a Bonfire.

it's just you.

[Sheldon]

28 minutes ago, Manx17 said:

I don’t know if it’s just me, I’ve just seen something that made me feel sick to my stomach. The partner of the person who knocked down that poor lady and left her to die is selling all the contents of their flat. I know she might need the money for a new start but I think it’s sinister. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to use a plate or fork or sleep in a bed of a killer. It should be put on a Bonfire.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/IOMNewspolitics/ for this pish.