±Forensic Focus Partners

Become an advertising partner

±Your Account


Username
Password

Forgotten password/username?

Site Members:

New Today: 2 Overall: 36296
New Yesterday: 6 Visitors: 159

±Follow Forensic Focus

Forensic Focus Facebook PageForensic Focus on TwitterForensic Focus LinkedIn GroupForensic Focus YouTube Channel

RSS feeds: News Forums Articles

±Latest Articles

±Latest Videos

±Latest Jobs

UK analyst threatened with contempt

Computer forensics discussion. Please ensure that your post is not better suited to one of the forums below (if it is, please post it there instead!)
Reply to topicReply to topic Printer Friendly Page
Forum FAQSearchView unanswered posts
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next 
  

echo6
Senior Member
 

Re: UK analyst threatened with contempt

Post Posted: Jul 27, 11 21:48

Just my 2p worth!

Isn't a MOU a "scrappy piece of paper"?

Interesting debate, and even though there has been CPS guidance on the matter I have long suspected it would come to situations such as this.

The appropriate CPS guidance may be found here
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h...ldren/#a04

The bit of relevance states
The s1B defence is available where a person 'making' an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph can prove that it was necessary to do so for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings. Archbold 31 - 107a and 107b.


So in summary the defence against the offence of making IIoC under S1(b) of the Protection of Childrens Act 1978 is provided by the amendment of Section 46 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Does this cover making IIoC for the defence, AND supplying/distributing such images? "for the purposes of criminal proceedings"

Suffice to say IMHO it remains ambiguous.

I am surprised however that the police expert has been dragged before the court and then has been forced into a position where he has had to say sorry for following policy, procedure and protocol. IME where this has occurred the Judge has asked for the Policy Owner to come before the court. Whilst I am not criticising the Judge, I have sympathy for the police analyst.

The Judge has an interest in ensuring the defendant has a right to a fair trial. How can this be achieved if the defence do not have access to relevant material? It has also been my experience that situations like this have been dealt with by a MOU. However it still doesn't clarify matters. Of course "for the purposes of criminal proceedings" may be an argument for access to such material by the defence.

Surely, the IIoC do not need to be examined, what needs to be examined is how they were made, distributed or how they came into the possession of the defendant. As we all know, to establish answers to these questions all the computer evidence has to be examined, which ultimately means providing material where IIoC may be derived from.

Although I have used MOU's in the past, I remain unconvinced that this appropriately addresses situations such as this.  
 
  

dc1743
Senior Member
 

Re: UK analyst threatened with contempt

Post Posted: Jul 27, 11 22:18

- echo6

Surely, the IIoC do not need to be examined


I have been very surprised at how poor the grading has been in many cases. Most indictments feature a roll up global possession count. The quoted number can often be reduced in many cases. Unfortunately the defence has to see the images for this reason.

Regards,  
 
  

echo6
Senior Member
 

Re: UK analyst threatened with contempt

Post Posted: Jul 27, 11 23:13

- dc1743
Unfortunately the defence has to see the images for this reason.
Whilst I agree, let us not detract from the point of the thread. The viewing of the images can be done subjectively at court hearings more appropriately in a controlled manner without the need for protracted in depth examinations.

I've often found the grading exercise of images demeaning to abused children. They are either indecent images or they are not. Either way it is up to the Judge to view the images for sentencing purposes, which isn't the point of this thread.  
 
  

Jonathan
Senior Member
 

Re: UK analyst threatened with contempt

Post Posted: Jul 28, 11 01:10

- dc1743
- echo6

Surely, the IIoC do not need to be examined


I have been very surprised at how poor the grading has been in many cases. Most indictments feature a roll up global possession count. The quoted number can often be reduced in many cases. Unfortunately the defence has to see the images for this reason.

Regards,


Of course - it's fundamental that the quantity of IIoC as well as grading and ageing are verified.

Back on topic, the articles state that the prosecution expert ignored the judge's directions on three separate occasions. The expert justified this by saying that it was his unit's policy. Policy and guidelines do not outweigh court orders.
_________________
Forensic Control
twitter.com/ForensicControl
St Bride Foundation, 14 Bride Lane, London, EC4Y 8EQ 
 
  

xaberx
Senior Member
 

Re: UK analyst threatened with contempt

Post Posted: Jul 28, 11 07:22

This article made me laugh quite a bit.


questions though that I must ask and I mean no disrespect by them:
The wig - Is it required as part of the court that they wear it ? If a Judge here in the US wore a outfit like that I would not be able to take them seriously without holding back laughter as they said "You do not require a scrappy piece of paper......." Again just my thoughts I don't mean any disrespect to the country or the court.

More so on the article, court orders come first. They are required to process everything on a timely manor and granted they did delay the trial this is a serious offense and should result in the changing of those guidelines to prevent future occurrences. This is a lesson learned for the agency.  
 
  

Rich2005
Senior Member
 

Re: UK analyst threatened with contempt

Post Posted: Jul 28, 11 14:23

Surely, the IIoC do not need to be examined, what needs to be examined is how they were made, distributed or how they came into the possession of the defendant. As we all know, to establish answers to these questions all the computer evidence has to be examined, which ultimately means providing material where IIoC may be derived from.

Afraid I disagree on that like the others. An example being a previous case I did where the individual was charged with not a huge amount of material, but suffice it to say upon viewing, very few could be confidently said to be child images. Further mitigating factors around the likely intent of the user / origin of the images found upon examining the PC meant that on the first day of court the case was dropped completely after defence counsel discussed the findings with the prosecution and made clear how weak their case was.  
 
  

nashie
Newbie
 

Re: UK analyst threatened with contempt

Post Posted: Jul 30, 11 19:40

The main thing to note is that the analyst in question was complying with his Force policy; it wasn't his individual view. I think it was wrong to beat him up over it!  
 

Page 6 of 7
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next