www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25829169
The Lord Chief Justice is quoted as saying "There was a complete and total failure, for reasons which remain unclear, to make a disclosure fundamental to the defence".
Surely, the 'reasons that are unclear' are the fact that if you disclose to the defence in one trial that there's an undercover cop in amongst them...he'll be blown...
...or am I missing something.
|
You can put an undercover cop in an organisation, in a neutral role, and use the intel he supplies to inform operations. Once you start using his info to support prosecutions the rules change.
That all relevant information has to be disclosed to the defence is a FUNDAMENTAL rule of our justice system. Failure to do so is at the root of pretty much every major miscarriage of Justice in yours and my lifetime.
Birmingham 6, Stefan Kisko etc etc etc.
If there are good reasons for not doing so then presumably you raise it with judge.
Kennedy's behaviour also went way beyond neutral. He's said to have supplied vans and if not actually doing so then coming within a fag paper's width of being an agent provocateur.
And that's aside from fact that he couldn't keep it in his breeks while on the assignment.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 21 Jan 14 at 16:18
|
>> You can put an undercover cop in an organisation, in a neutral role, and use
>> the intel he supplies to inform operations. Once you start using his info to support
>> prosecutions the rules change.
>>
>> That all relevant information has to be disclosed to the defence is a FUNDAMENTAL rule
>> of our justice system. Failure to do so is at the root of pretty much
>> every major miscarriage of Justice in yours and my lifetime.
Yes, but the trouble is there's a grey area in what is only intel generally supplied and what is needed/used for a prosecution...because presumably the whole point of the officer being there is at some point to aim for a prosecution ..so when that point is reached, should the nature of the undercover work automatically be disclosed ..or only disclosed if the undercover officer's going to give specific evidence in that case.
The whole area is a mine field and it is quite common for cases to be dropped when defence teams start probing tactics and the use of undercover officers, whether or not they think/know one was used..purely because the safety or integrity of the individual is obviously paramount and the job of the defence is to get someone off by whatever means they can...and if that includes muddying the waters between what is relevant to a case and what isn't, just so that you can insist on undercover evidence being included, (knowing that it won't)..
..then the whole thing isn't that straightforward, is it?
|
>>
>> ..then the whole thing isn't that straightforward, is it?
>>
I thought the whole point about intelligence-gathering was maintain the security of your agents, not to suddenly pop their evidence up in court? I assumed their role was to uncover things by if necessary dubious means, to direct the attention of more legitimate investigations to try and turn up hard evidence that could be used in court.
|
I would be the first to admit that I do not fully understand the ins and outs of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA). It is quite a specialist area.
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/attorney_generals_guidelines_on_disclosure/
A lot revolves around the witholding of evidence that would be prejudicial to the fair trial of the defendant and any evidence that could undermine the Prosecution case.
If the defence get a wiff of undercover tactics or the use of a Covert Human Intelligence Source (CHIS) then they may push for Disclosure of details. A case may be pulled to protect the anonimity of that source. Consequently they may exploit that avenue even if in reality the evidence does on the face of it severely impact overall evidence. Twist it and you have implications of underhand tactics.
There is of course implications that the undercover source also acted as 'Agent Provocateur' and themselves were guilty of criminal offences. In this case, if I remember correctly, the undercover Officer went 'rogue'. All very messy.
I did chortle when I heard that the acquitted were demanding a public inquiry into undercover Policing tactics. Wouldn't be undercover then would they?
|
It's an ideal job for a psychopath, leading a detailed double life, either ruining the lives of innocent soft lefties or bravely risking their own to learn more about Islamist plotting, more difficult that.
It takes a special sort of person to form a close sexual relationship with someone, even have children with them, while spying on them all the time. A psychopath.
|
>>
>> It takes a special sort of person
>>
Presumably that's part of the job description. They aren't trying to recruit saints are they?
Like not employing a jobsworth H&S fanatic to do bomb disposal.
|
Undercover policing - Bromptonaut
