UK analyst threatened with contempt

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

" 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. "

Totally agree, but why did Kent go down this route in the first place ?

We all must remember we are not getting the full events

Mitch

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.

Section 1(b) relates to making of indecent images, section 1(b) relates to distribution of indecent images. As far as I'm aware the only exemptions for distribution are GCHQ and security services

minime2k9, i'm certainly no lawyer but I imagine you could argue that this covers it within the POCA
"Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) or ©, it shall be a defence for him to prove—
(a)that he had a legitimate reason for distributing or showing the photographs [or pseudo-photographs]or (as the case may be) having them in his possession;"
The prosecution or defence of a criminal case would surely be deemed to be a legitimate reason, especially when ordered by a Judge.

The problem is (again across the pond), that I rather be held in contempt of court, than charged by a prosecutor (Crown counsel?) for distribution of such material.

That is right. I rather sit in jail for months for contempt, than be charged, but never convicted of distribution.

That is because for contempt, I can show my over-zealousness for order (Mr Crute's office was consistent at least in three cases), and explain it in the future. On the other hand, for distribution - it matters not how much I would explain - no legal firm would touch my work with 10 foot pole. The stain is permanent, irrelevant of the facts.

There are no second chances in our industry.

I can't conceive of a situation in which the Crown Prosecution Service would deem it to be in the public interest to press charges against a police HTCU for providing the defence expert with access to evidence in a criminal case at the direction of the presiding judge.