Bugging of lawyers latest: Ian Huntley could go free

BillieTheBot

A legal precedent has established that deliberate bugging of conversations with lawyers constitutes such an affront to the rule of law that trials should be halted and any convictions obtained overturned.

The ruling, in the court of appeal in 2005, may mean that dozens of terrorist trials could be aborted and the Soham murderer, Ian Huntley, go free if allegations by a whistleblower that lawyers' visits with clients were routinely bugged at Woodhill prison are substantiated.

The source, who spoke to the Daily Telegraph, may have communicated with Mark Kearney, the former detective sergeant who exposed the bugging of the Labour MP Sadiq Khan on a prison visit to a constituent. Kearney is due to appear at Kingston crown court today on unrelated charges of leaking information to the media. At least 10 solicitors were bugged at Woodhill, where Huntley was held in the run-up to his trial in 2003, the source has alleged.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/11/police.ukcrime

This could be the most monumental fuck-up ever.

I hope everyone responsible gets it for this. Though I suspect the likes of the Scum newspaper will be defending the right to bug conversations- in fact it already did so last week.

Former Member

Isn't it strange that, though you always criticise The Sun, you always seem to know what's in every day's edition? Are you trying to tell us something? Perhaps you should change your avatar to reflect this.

I seriously question whether the likes of Ian Huntley would ever be released. Any government which didn't do everything possible to stop that from happening would be massacred. Never again would Labour be able to claim they were "tough on crime". And who on earth would have any confidence whatsoever in a legal system which would let filth like him out?

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

Isn't it strange that, though you always criticise The Sun, you always seem to know what's in every day's edition? Are you trying to tell us something? Perhaps you should change your avatar to reflect this.

Well you know what they say... keep your friends close and your enemies closer. It's good to know they're up to...

I seriously question whether the likes of Ian Huntley would ever be released. Any government which didn't do everything possible to stop that from happening would be massacred. Never again would Labour be able to claim they were "tough on crime". And who on earth would have any confidence whatsoever in a legal system which would let filth like him out?

We would probably have to offer him protective custody, a new identity and police protection for life as well if he were to be freed.

Hopefully it won't happen. Though there is a possibility that his conviction might be quashed if the article is right, and disgusting as watching him walk out would be, no democratic government could possibly ignore a court order to let him go.

Former Member

I assume he wouldn't be freed, but there would be a new trial.

Former Member

If this is true, Huntley and others would have recourse to the Criminal Cases Review Commission who could decide to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal to decide whether there has been a miscarriage of justice. Please note that a finding of a miscarriage of justice does not necessarily need to rebut the evidence that the defendant actually committed the offence, but may effectively void the judgment due to procedural failures that guarantee an individual's right to Art 6 ECHR. For my part I doubt Huntley will ever be released into society due to his threat to the general public, but cannot emphasize enough the absolute stupidity of the whole bugging affair (particularly as a conviction in my mind seemed entirely attainable).

Former Member

This doesnt suprise me whatsoever, another monumental fuck up by the powers to be.

Former Member

J wrote: »

Incidently I'm not saying he should be free to roam, just that it's probably not his fault for being like that and that he's therefore not filth.

Are you talking about his sexual attraction to children, or the need to murder?

Former Member

Flashman's Ghost wrote: »

I assume he wouldn't be freed, but there would be a new trial.

Any new trial would probably also be unsafe because of the bugging whilst he was on remand.

I don't think it will happen but it goes to show just how sinister the Metropolitan Police really are.

Former Member

Kermit wrote: »

Any new trial would probably also be unsafe because of the bugging whilst he was on remand.

I don't think it will happen but it goes to show just how sinister the Metropolitan Police really are.

Surely it would only be unsafe if evidence from the bugging had been used in court.

Former Member

I agree with J, I think. Basically most crime is down to a failure in society at some point, whether it was parents or TV or you name it. They don't excuse behaviour, but they can explain it, and I think it's the most compelling reason we should all be involved in the proactive change in culture to stop crimes before they happen.

But he went on a bit of a rant there . I would say that he is definately a danger to society and should not be freed. Regardless of the legal decision - the government should send him to guantanamo or something .

Very big mistake by the police, but then to get the information they need sometimes they have to bend the rules themselves, so it's hard for joe public to hold them to account. For example, if someone has abducted someone and you want to find them, you have them in custody and they're talking to their solicitor - I think the rights of the victim in that situation become paramount and so give the police the justification they need to bend the rules.

Of course, doing it once in exceptional circumstances may be ok - but I honestly don't see why they seem to be habitually bugging offenders? On the of chance they might catch something useful? Even though it would be inadmissable in court and if their actions were found out the case would be thrown out?!? It makes no sense. But I'm just a peon, as it were. Maybe they have good reasons?

Former Member

I don't know anything about the rules regarding solicitors e.t.c. so i'll keep out of that, I know at a local level anyway cops don't have the time, resources or inclination to bug people.

As for the possibility that Huntley could be released, if he is it'll be the best thing that'll ever happen to everyone else. He won't last more than 5 minutes outside, despite police protection. Cops talk, someone, somewhere will talk to someone about where Huntley is.

Former Member

Whowhere wrote: »

I don't know anything about the rules regarding solicitors e.t.c. so i'll keep out of that, I know at a local level anyway cops don't have the time, resources or inclination to bug people.

As for the possibility that Huntley could be released, if he is it'll be the best thing that'll ever happen to everyone else. He won't last more than 5 minutes outside, despite police protection. Cops talk, someone, somewhere will talk to someone about where Huntley is.

or they could give him a retrial showing the evidence they gathered, but they'd rather let him go

Former Member

Aladdin wrote: »

Well you know what they say... keep your friends close and your enemies closer. It's good to know they're up to...

If the newspaper that dare not speak its name was your wife, then The Sun would be your mistress.

Whowhere wrote: »

As for the possibility that Huntley could be released, if he is it'll be the best thing that'll ever happen to everyone else. He won't last more than 5 minutes outside, despite police protection.

For some reason, I can imagine one of the Sunday papers disclosing his location. And who the hell would miss Huntley when he was gone, after all?