Nobody said "always" though. In this single instance who would lose out except the nonce?
As much as it sickens me that he will be able to keep the photos - if he is expected to act lawfully (and punished if not), then why shouldn't the authorities be expected to do so as well? If the law doesn't fit with popular opinion, then the popular opinion should work for a change in the law.
.. but I wouldn't want to see a change to the law that could be used against "anyone" without just cause, i.e. police officers being able to seize, search equipment, and delete images on a whim.
Simplistic but ultimately correct. The HRA/ECHR do not give any specific powers to police officers. Such powers come from common law and the various statutes, PACE, RTA, Police Reform Act, Anti Social Behaviour Act etc. The ECHR dictates to what extent they can be used and what has to be taken in to consideration. Put it this way - take away the ECHR and people can still be locked up, searched, breath tested, have their details required if involved in ASB etc. Take away the various statutes and common law powers however, and the ECHR in no way allows for the aforementioned to be done.
Okay, sure - the police do not have any powers that originate from the HRA. But the HRA can be used to extend (or more usually to restrict) the powers they already have. And there does come a point where a power becomes so radically different to what it was before, by virtue of the s.6 requirement to act in accordance with the convention rights, that it has almost become an entirely new power anway.
In this case Liberty are suggesting the police should be able to keep hold of someone else's property if to give it back would infringe the victim's article 3 and article 8 rights.
At present, and leaving aside the proceeds of crime legislation, police powers to keep or destroy property relate only to property the possession of which would be a criminal offence. To extend that power so that the police can confiscate non-criminal material to protect the convention rights of third parties would be such a huge extension of that power that in effect the HRA is creating a new power altogether. That's why I say that what you said was simplistic.
.. but I wouldn't want to see a change to the law that could be used against "anyone" without just cause, i.e. police officers being able to seize, search equipment, and delete images on a whim.
Like I said, if popular opinion wanted it, then popular opinion should work for it, such is democracy. I agree however that anything like that ought to be very limited in which circumstances it can be used.
Okay, sure - the police do not have any powers that originate from the HRA. But the HRA can be used to extend (or more usually to restrict) the powers they already have. And there does come a point where a power becomes so radically different to what it was before, by virtue of the s.6 requirement to act in accordance with the convention rights, that it has almost become an entirely new power anway.
In this case Liberty are suggesting the police should be able to keep hold of someone else's property if to give it back would infringe the victim's article 3 and article 8 rights.
At present, and leaving aside the proceeds of crime legislation, police powers to keep or destroy property relate only to property the possession of which would be a criminal offence. To extend that power so that the police can confiscate non-criminal material to protect the convention rights of third parties would be such a huge extension of that power that in effect the HRA is creating a new power altogether. That's why I say that what you said was simplistic.
That's my point however - as you say the powers allow for property to be destroyed where it relates to a criminal offence. In this case the property doesn't. This isn't a criminal issue, it is a civil one, and police don't have a power in this case because as far as I can tell, there is no conflict about who is the lawful owner.
Okay, sure - the police do not have any powers that originate from the HRA. But the HRA can be used to extend (or more usually to restrict) the powers they already have. And there does come a point where a power becomes so radically different to what it was before, by virtue of the s.6 requirement to act in accordance with the convention rights, that it has almost become an entirely new power anway.
In this case Liberty are suggesting the police should be able to keep hold of someone else's property if to give it back would infringe the victim's article 3 and article 8 rights.
At present, and leaving aside the proceeds of crime legislation, police powers to keep or destroy property relate only to property the possession of which would be a criminal offence. To extend that power so that the police can confiscate non-criminal material to protect the convention rights of third parties would be such a huge extension of that power that in effect the HRA is creating a new power altogether. That's why I say that what you said was simplistic.
That's my point however - as you say the powers allow for property to be destroyed where it relates to a criminal offence. In this case the property doesn't. This isn't a criminal issue, it is a civil one, and police don't have a power in this case because as far as I can tell, there is no conflict about who is the lawful owner.
Well I think Liberty's argument is that the police do have such a power in this case. They contend that a) Returning the photographs would breach the victim's article 3 and/or 8 rights, and that since it is unlawful for the police to act in a way that would breach someone's convention rights, the police must not return the photographs to the offender.
Well I think Liberty's argument is that the police do have such a power in this case. They contend that a) Returning the photographs would breach the victim's article 3 and/or 8 rights, and that since it is unlawful for the police to act in a way that would breach someone's convention rights, the police must not return the photographs to the offender.
And that is where the challenge must surely fall flat on it's face, and I'll point you to something you said previously:
I think to say that the HRA doesn't give the police any powers is a bit simplistic. It prohibits the police from acting in a way contrary to the convention rights, unless an act of parliament requires them to do so
It is an act of parliament that requires they return the photos to the lawful owner. In all honesty I expect it is something that hasn't been tested in court yet so it'd be interesting to see how the case law comes out the other end. I do hope for the victim's sake that the photos are taken from him.
And that is where the challenge must surely fall flat on it's face, and I'll point you to something you said previously:
It is an act of parliament that requires they return the photos to the lawful owner. In all honesty I expect it is something that hasn't been tested in court yet so it'd be interesting to see how the case law comes out the other end. I do hope for the victim's sake that the photos are taken from him.
Which act of parliament requires they return it though? I don't know a great deal about the legal regime for confiscating property. Is it PACE? If it is, then presumably Liberty think the court can interpret the difficulty away using s.3 HRA.
As I said before it could probably be argued that it would be a breach of privacy, and considered to be degrading, to delete someone's family photos without authority, or just cause.
As far as the victim is concerned their privacy was probably not breached when the photos were originally taken and surely it would be unlikely that the mere possession of said lawful pictures could be deemed to be akin to torture or be degrading.
If there are photographs of the victims on the laptop the sensible thing to do would be to have an independent person look at the laptop and delete said photographs.
Which act of parliament requires they return it though? I don't know a great deal about the legal regime for confiscating property. Is it PACE? If it is, then presumably Liberty think the court can interpret the difficulty away using s.3 HRA.
'The court' would be a civil court. So it would be exactly where it would be now if the police just seized/deleted/destroyed the data.
Either way its a compo claim.
As others have said, its always best when laptops like these happen to get lost or damaged in the property stores.
Happens to a lot of samurai swords for some reason.
'The court' would be a civil court. So it would be exactly where it would be now if the police just seized/deleted/destroyed the data.
Either way its a compo claim.
As others have said, its always best when laptops like these happen to get lost or damaged in the property stores.
Happens to a lot of samurai swords for some reason.
I've read it and I agree with Maxatoria completely.
It doesn't matter to me that the photos are not pornographic or indecent. It's the fact that it's out of order in terms of the well being of the victims mental health that he is allowed to keep the images.
It's like yet again the victims' needs are not of prime importance. >:(
I've read it and I agree with Maxatoria completely.
It doesn't matter to me that the photos are not pornographic or indecent. It's the fact that it's out of order in terms of the well being of the victims mental health that he is allowed to keep the images.
It's like yet again the victims' needs are not of prime importance. >:(
I think they are which is why this has become an issue in the first place.
If the victim's needs were not of prime importance this wouldn't be an issue at all. They'd just hand the laptop over and the argument wouldn't be given the light of day.
But of course the victims feelings are relevant, so this is an issue.. but quite simply, when all is said and done it would be unlawful - illegal - for the police to delete the images. There is no mechanism in law to allow this to happen, it wasn't written into legislation as the scenario had probably never been conceived.
The argument for the police to just delete the images anyway doesn't hold much weight because it sets a nasty precedent for permitted, premeditated corruption and permitted, premeditated unlawfulness on the part of the police.
Nobody is trying to personally hurt the victim or even support the criminal but they must do, and be seen to be operating within the law. These actions aren't malicious or intentional, but rather due to faulty - or lack of legislation, a genuine error.
Parliament could always pass a law saying that nobody is allowed to keep photographs of someone they have committed a criminal offences against. I wouldn't have any objection to that.
The definition is that the image must be indecent - and the defendant's reason for possessing the image, whether it be sexual gratification or not, is wholly irrelevant to the question whether the image is indecent.
Possessing a decent image of a child for sexual gratification is lawful. Possessing an indecent image of a child, even for non sexual reasons, is unlawful.
In this case the images are perfectly decent, so it doesn't matter what the defendant's reasons are for wanting them back.
The cnild should have a say in this. It's her image and she well knows what he wants it for.She should not be troubled like this.
I would have thought that going into someones laptop and deleting images, without proper authority, would be a breach of privacy
I would have thought that deliberately deleting images of someone's family, without just cause, could be seen as degrading treatment.
Then the relevant authorities should exercise common sense and tell him to f*ck off with any dream of compensation. His victim is the one who deserves justice, not him, and this situation does not deliver it.
Which act of parliament requires they return it though? I don't know a great deal about the legal regime for confiscating property. Is it PACE? If it is, then presumably Liberty think the court can interpret the difficulty away using s.3 HRA.
Section 19 & 22 of PACE 1984, and Section 1 of Theft Act 1968.
This appears to be a civil issue. If the family don't want him to have the photographs they need to speak with a solicitor and pursue a civil court case.
They should just Photoshop someone's head onto every image of the victim, just like David Thorne and his classic Justin bieber funny http://www.27bslash6.com/bieber.html
EVERYONE deserves justice from our jusdicial system which is one reason why politicians should keep their noses out.
He has already been tried, convicted and sentenced, it is not right for others to add their own punishments.
What if he is still exercising fear and control over his victims. The effect appears to support that view. The judge has described him as both dangerous and warped. This situation looks like one that has been unforseen in law. It needs to be corrected quickly and with minimal expense to the taxpayer.
Comments
As much as it sickens me that he will be able to keep the photos - if he is expected to act lawfully (and punished if not), then why shouldn't the authorities be expected to do so as well? If the law doesn't fit with popular opinion, then the popular opinion should work for a change in the law.
Why do you think that is?
I gave a damn big hint as to the probable reason earlier in the thread.
Okay, sure - the police do not have any powers that originate from the HRA. But the HRA can be used to extend (or more usually to restrict) the powers they already have. And there does come a point where a power becomes so radically different to what it was before, by virtue of the s.6 requirement to act in accordance with the convention rights, that it has almost become an entirely new power anway.
In this case Liberty are suggesting the police should be able to keep hold of someone else's property if to give it back would infringe the victim's article 3 and article 8 rights.
At present, and leaving aside the proceeds of crime legislation, police powers to keep or destroy property relate only to property the possession of which would be a criminal offence. To extend that power so that the police can confiscate non-criminal material to protect the convention rights of third parties would be such a huge extension of that power that in effect the HRA is creating a new power altogether. That's why I say that what you said was simplistic.
Like I said, if popular opinion wanted it, then popular opinion should work for it, such is democracy. I agree however that anything like that ought to be very limited in which circumstances it can be used.
That's my point however - as you say the powers allow for property to be destroyed where it relates to a criminal offence. In this case the property doesn't. This isn't a criminal issue, it is a civil one, and police don't have a power in this case because as far as I can tell, there is no conflict about who is the lawful owner.
Somner put it concisely and rather well.
Well I think Liberty's argument is that the police do have such a power in this case. They contend that a) Returning the photographs would breach the victim's article 3 and/or 8 rights, and that
And that is where the challenge must surely fall flat on it's face, and I'll point you to something you said previously:
It is an act of parliament that requires they return the photos to the lawful owner. In all honesty I expect it is something that hasn't been tested in court yet so it'd be interesting to see how the case law comes out the other end. I do hope for the victim's sake that the photos are taken from him.
Which act of parliament requires they return it though? I don't know a great deal about the legal regime for confiscating property. Is it PACE? If it is, then presumably Liberty think the court can interpret the difficulty away using s.3 HRA.
As far as the victim is concerned their privacy was probably not breached when the photos were originally taken and surely it would be unlikely that the mere possession of said lawful pictures could be deemed to be akin to torture or be degrading.
'The court' would be a civil court. So it would be exactly where it would be now if the police just seized/deleted/destroyed the data.
Either way its a compo claim.
As others have said, its always best when laptops like these happen to get lost or damaged in the property stores.
Happens to a lot of samurai swords for some reason.
Not a clue what you're talking about, sorry.
I've read it and I agree with Maxatoria completely.
It doesn't matter to me that the photos are not pornographic or indecent. It's the fact that it's out of order in terms of the well being of the victims mental health that he is allowed to keep the images.
It's like yet again the victims' needs are not of prime importance. >:(
I think they are which is why this has become an issue in the first place.
If the victim's needs were not of prime importance this wouldn't be an issue at all. They'd just hand the laptop over and the argument wouldn't be given the light of day.
But of course the victims feelings are relevant, so this is an issue.. but quite simply, when all is said and done it would be unlawful - illegal - for the police to delete the images. There is no mechanism in law to allow this to happen, it wasn't written into legislation as the scenario had probably never been conceived.
The argument for the police to just delete the images anyway doesn't hold much weight because it sets a nasty precedent for permitted, premeditated corruption and permitted, premeditated unlawfulness on the part of the police.
Nobody is trying to personally hurt the victim or even support the criminal but they must do, and be seen to be operating within the law. These actions aren't malicious or intentional, but rather due to faulty - or lack of legislation, a genuine error.
This is an excellent idea.
If the courts can make possession of common household objects illegal then surely this could be applied to the images?
Infringements, by not voluntarily deleting the images, could lead to a fine followed by longer imprisonment.
Potentially judges may not be as lenient with him as they are with other ASBO infringers.
Did you? You should mark your posts "DS resident law and justice expert" then I don't miss them.
The cnild should have a say in this. It's her image and she well knows what he wants it for.She should not be troubled like this.
He has already been tried, convicted and sentenced, it is not right for others to add their own punishments.
Section 19 & 22 of PACE 1984, and Section 1 of Theft Act 1968.
This appears to be a civil issue. If the family don't want him to have the photographs they need to speak with a solicitor and pursue a civil court case.
http://www.27bslash6.com/bieber.html
What if he is still exercising fear and control over his victims. The effect appears to support that view. The judge has described him as both dangerous and warped. This situation looks like one that has been unforseen in law. It needs to be corrected quickly and with minimal expense to the taxpayer.