Privacy versus criminals

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
09/05/2010 12:16

I attended the 1st conference on Law organized by the Bar of Famagusta at Artemis Hotel over the weekend. One of the most interesting topics was the use of evidence obtained by illegal means and how it should not be allowed to be used to catch the criminals. Just a few succint examples:

1. A judge gives permission to tap the telephone of a Mr. A. One of the persons calling Mr. A is his accomplice Mr. B. The American court did not allow the evidence obtained through telephone tapping to be used against Mr. B because the original permission for tapping the telephone was only against Mr. A. Balmy decision if you ask me.

2. Someone keeps damaging the machines of a launderette owner. He installs a secret camera and catches the rouge. Againt the Amerian court does not allow the evidence obtained from the secret camera because it breached the privacy of the rouge. The speaker supported this decision and I objected to it very strongly explaining why it was wrong and our Chief Justice was with me. Good for him

If I keep a secret watch and catch the rouge it is acceptable but if I use a camera it is not! This is too much sensitivity over privacy gone mad.

3. The case of husband and wife using secret cameras in the home is another interesting subject. What do you think?

ismet

proger1



Joined: 18/04/2009
Posts: 2919

Message Posted:
09/05/2010 12:56

ismet,

I agree with you totally on subjects 1 and 2, a crime is a crime whether you are doing it privately or not. I almost think the defence lawyer should be charged for trying to pervert the course of justice. Are they guilty, yes, can you prove it, yes, is it accepted,no, because justice is blind, it is in these cases, not by choice tho.



On 3 I am a little stretched. I have no problem with the idea of people catching thier partner, again if you do wrong it is wrong whether hidden or not. The only issue I have is that once something like this is brought into the public eye it tends to make the situation worse, I have been in a similar situation (no cameras though). If kept private the couple might be able to work thier way through it but alas if it is publicised it would take a very strong couple to recover and get on with thier life together. You could argue that if one of the couple feels strongly enough to bring it to court they are done for but then human emotions are funny.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
09/05/2010 18:53

Are these laws to protect the victim or the criminal?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
09/05/2010 22:22

Bill,

The main principle is this: Any evidence obtained by illegal means cannot be used in court against the accused. Let me give you an extreme example. Suppose somebody gives evidence under torture and tells where he hid the gun that killed the victim. The police digs the place and uncoveres the gun used in murder. Such evidece cannot be used in court because it would mean that the court condones and even encourages torture at police stations.

According to a new trend, now many countries have laws to protect the privacy of individuals. Hence it is a criminal offence to spy on unsuspecting persons and thus as a result such evidence cannot be used in court. The main trouble here is where to draw the line and there is great variation between countries but of course in time they will somehow converge. Here is an example: if the police determines the suspect by illegal means, can they obtain evidence by legal means after that point? e.g. The police taps your phone illegally and based on that they find a gun in your house. The gun was found by legal means but the original step was illegal. As I understood it the Anglo-Saxon system does not allow it but the Continental system does. Just an example but each country has its own laws or lack of it and not much precedence to go by at the moment. It is all in the making.

So the main aim is to protect the public i.e. individuals at the risk of letting the criminals escape justice.

ismet

Brinsley


Joined: 04/04/2009
Posts: 6858

Message Posted:
09/05/2010 22:53

Ismet

They've all escaped justice here by calling themselves Advocates!



Richard

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
09/05/2010 22:58

Well Richard, if you can't beat them join them

ismet