Join Us!

UK analyst threaten...
 
Notifications
Clear all

UK analyst threatened with contempt  

Page 1 / 3
  RSS
Jonathan
(@jonathan)
Senior Member

http//www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2011-1/july/15/judge_adele_williams.aspx

Too right. Tried to blame it on the CPS. roll

Quote
Posted : 15/07/2011 8:10 pm
Rich2005
(@rich2005)
Active Member

Ouch, that must have been a fun day in court.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/07/2011 9:24 pm
jhup
 jhup
(@jhup)
Community Legend

I do not know.

Looking across the pond, I am tired of judges having a "holier than thou" attitude.

I have worked on cases where judges flipped out and had God complex.

Should I ever find a judge telling me I have to do something that is explicitly illegal, I would tell them "do it, hold me in contempt, and will see how the media will set your powdered curly wig on fire"… (How are judges assigned, and for how long?)

In this case, at least in the US, it is beat into our heads, never ever, ever duplicate such material. Do not look in their general direction, do not even display it, do not think about it; do not even breath in their vicinity . . .

So the poor schmuck says "hey I am not allowed to give you stuff like this"… then he gets beat up on the other end.

As I said, I do not know if I agree with the judge raking this guy…

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/07/2011 9:36 pm
mallaig
(@mallaig)
New Member

Too right. Tried to blame it on the CPS. roll

Too right?!

Read the full article again and you may find the bit that says "guidance has been issued by ACPO setting out how the defence can be provided with the indecent images or media that has been found."

If the defence is unfit to follow the required prodcedure you can't blame the analyst, let alone threaten him with imprisonment… roll

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/07/2011 9:37 pm
Jonathan
(@jonathan)
Senior Member

Too right. Tried to blame it on the CPS. roll

Too right?!

Read the full article again and you may find the bit that says "guidance has been issued by ACPO setting out how the defence can be provided with the indecent images or media that has been found."

If the defence is unfit to follow the required prodcedure you can't blame the analyst, let alone threaten him with imprisonment… roll

Too right.

Read the full article again and you may find the bit that says "guidance has been issued by ACPO setting out how the defence can be provided with the indecent images or media that has been found."

The ACPO guidelines are, as the article says, just guidelines. It's plainly incorrect to hold a industry code of practice as of greater importance than a judge's orders. Expert witnesses are there to serve the court, not the other way round. The Academy of Experts has summed up it very well

"An expert's duty in providing written reports and giving evidence is to help the Court, and that this duty overrides any obligation to the party by whom they are engaged"

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/07/2011 10:01 pm
PaulSanderson
(@paulsanderson)
Senior Member

I think for those of you across the pond it is worth bearing in mind that it is quite normal for a defence expert to have access to IIoC material. When I did this sort of work I had never had any trouble getting a copy of the images to examine at my premises from any UK police force.

I dont think the issue here is that the judge ordered the release of the images, it is more that the police expert asked for the orders in writing (assuming the press report is correct).

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/07/2011 10:14 pm
pragmatopian
(@pragmatopian)
Active Member

Read the full article again and you may find the bit that says "guidance has been issued by ACPO setting out how the defence can be provided with the indecent images or media that has been found."

The ACPO guidelines are, as the article says, just guidelines. It's plainly incorrect to hold a industry code of practice as of greater importance than a judge's orders. Expert witnesses are there to serve the court, not the other way round.

QFT

ReplyQuote
Posted : 15/07/2011 10:16 pm
jhup
 jhup
(@jhup)
Community Legend

Again, I do not understand why the judge would have such a problem with having her words in writing.

That "scrappy piece of paper" can save the the examiner's career when he releases the material.

I am quite sure that she "will not have this bureaucracy" about documentation when it comes to others career. I ask again - how are judges positioned onto a bench in the UK?

Furthermore, if her court is unable to deliver a "scrappy piece of paper", how is it that the examiner is "building in months of delay"? I would say she is blaming the wrong person for her court's inability to process her bureaucracy…

Her chickens come home to roost?

But, then again, I am seeing this from across the pond.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 18/07/2011 9:56 am
Jonathan
(@jonathan)
Senior Member

Again, I do not understand why the judge would have such a problem with having her words in writing.

That "scrappy piece of paper" can save the the examiner's career when he releases the material.

I am quite sure that she "will not have this bureaucracy" about documentation when it comes to others career. I ask again - how are judges positioned onto a bench in the UK?

Furthermore, if her court is unable to deliver a "scrappy piece of paper", how is it that the examiner is "building in months of delay"? I would say she is blaming the wrong person for her court's inability to process her bureaucracy…

Her chickens come home to roost?

But, then again, I am seeing this from across the pond.

The judge didn't request he break the law; it was a usual everyday request. Very odd that he refused to comply.

More details here http//www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/15/judge-threatens-to-punish-police-forensic-analyst-for-bureaucratic-delays-in-sex-trials-115875-23271710/ It appears he's the head of the HTCU and was being questioned on his policy in this area.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 18/07/2011 2:09 pm
PaulSanderson
(@paulsanderson)
Senior Member

There were two threads to the case

1. The scrappy piece of paper
2. That Kent fight requests to hand over image files to defence experts - to my knowledge nearly all other forces hand them over after a MOU is signed.

It is point 2 that the judge is refering to re months of delay

of course I am basing what i have read on the newspaper articles - so there may be another side to this

ReplyQuote
Posted : 18/07/2011 2:53 pm
mitch
(@mitch)
Active Member

I am sure we are all professionals here, and agree that everyone has a right to defending themselves.

I have worked in the past with Kent Police Force in a number of defense cases and I am sure we all will agree who has had any experience with them, they are excellent, in fact " known " for their work.

I have signed many a MOU, when picking up evidence. and the MOU is in force to not only protect the police, but informs the defense investigator of their responsibilities.

Having this material is a huge responsibility.

In the past I have known situations where "other parties" have singed the MOU for example a sales person of a digital forensics company who has picked this material up. That is wrong.

The person who signed for it must be the person examining the case for the defense.

In essence Kent police are correct.

Mitch

ReplyQuote
Posted : 18/07/2011 3:52 pm
minime2k9
(@minime2k9)
Active Member

The judge didn't request he break the law; it was a usual everyday request. Very odd that he refused to comply.

More details here http//www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/15/judge-threatens-to-punish-police-forensic-analyst-for-bureaucratic-delays-in-sex-trials-115875-23271710/ It appears he's the head of the HTCU and was being questioned on his policy in this area.

Distributing indecent images of children not an offence where you come from? Its fairly standard practice to have a MoU for these requests. Its required as well to ensure that they are contractually required to delete the images afterwards.

Although if it was just the images they wished to look at, I know we will faciliate defence coming to view them. If they want to examine them its a MoU. Cant fault him for this, procedure is there for a reason.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 18/07/2011 4:26 pm
Jonathan
(@jonathan)
Senior Member

The judge didn't request he break the law; it was a usual everyday request. Very odd that he refused to comply.

More details here http//www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/15/judge-threatens-to-punish-police-forensic-analyst-for-bureaucratic-delays-in-sex-trials-115875-23271710/ It appears he's the head of the HTCU and was being questioned on his policy in this area.

Distributing indecent images of children not an offence where you come from? Its fairly standard practice to have a MoU for these requests. Its required as well to ensure that they are contractually required to delete the images afterwards.

Although if it was just the images they wished to look at, I know we will faciliate defence coming to view them. If they want to examine them its a MoU. Cant fault him for this, procedure is there for a reason.

This issue has nothing to do with the common practice of signing a Memorandum of Understanding. The area of contention is that Kent request that court orders be produced before the defence examiner is allowed to do their job. Its unwarranted, a waste of time, and a waste of public funds as the judge pointed out.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 18/07/2011 4:55 pm
minime2k9
(@minime2k9)
Active Member

The judge didn't request he break the law; it was a usual everyday request. Very odd that he refused to comply.

More details here http//www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/15/judge-threatens-to-punish-police-forensic-analyst-for-bureaucratic-delays-in-sex-trials-115875-23271710/ It appears he's the head of the HTCU and was being questioned on his policy in this area.

Distributing indecent images of children not an offence where you come from? Its fairly standard practice to have a MoU for these requests. Its required as well to ensure that they are contractually required to delete the images afterwards.

Although if it was just the images they wished to look at, I know we will faciliate defence coming to view them. If they want to examine them its a MoU. Cant fault him for this, procedure is there for a reason.

This issue has nothing to do with the common practice of signing a Memorandum of Understanding. The area of contention is that Kent request that court orders be produced before the defence examiner is allowed to do their job. Its unwarranted, a waste of time, and a waste of public funds as the judge pointed out.

Which would be simple enough for a court to produce, its to protect themselves from being charged with distribution of indecent images themselves.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 18/07/2011 5:00 pm
Jonathan
(@jonathan)
Senior Member

The judge didn't request he break the law; it was a usual everyday request. Very odd that he refused to comply.

More details here http//www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/15/judge-threatens-to-punish-police-forensic-analyst-for-bureaucratic-delays-in-sex-trials-115875-23271710/ It appears he's the head of the HTCU and was being questioned on his policy in this area.

Distributing indecent images of children not an offence where you come from? Its fairly standard practice to have a MoU for these requests. Its required as well to ensure that they are contractually required to delete the images afterwards.

Although if it was just the images they wished to look at, I know we will faciliate defence coming to view them. If they want to examine them its a MoU. Cant fault him for this, procedure is there for a reason.

This issue has nothing to do with the common practice of signing a Memorandum of Understanding. The area of contention is that Kent request that court orders be produced before the defence examiner is allowed to do their job. Its unwarranted, a waste of time, and a waste of public funds as the judge pointed out.

Which would be simple enough for a court to produce, its to protect themselves from being charged with distribution of indecent images themselves.

It's fully covered by s46 Sexual Offences Act 2003

Criminal proceedings, investigations etc.(1)After section 1A of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) insert—“1BException for criminal proceedings, investigations etc.(1)In proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(a) of making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, the defendant is not guilty of the offence if he proves that—(a)it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, in any part of the world"

Ergo, requesting of a court order is wholly unnecessary.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 18/07/2011 5:13 pm
Page 1 / 3
Share: