police corruption

[Alang]

Letter in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/24/police-public-surveillance

"Last Friday I sat as a JP, judging an unemployed man accused of
assaulting a policeman, mostly in view of a council street camera. He
had earlier been refused legal aid and the Crown Prosecution Service
had denied him advance access to the pictures. He only saw them when
we did, during his trial.

He told us that a passerby had also filmed the incident on a mobile.
He was right. We saw the photographer on the council tape. The
defendant said police had demanded the person's mobile and deleted the
pictures. When asked in court, the officer confirmed that this was the
case, the reason being to stop police being on YouTube. From the
casual way it was agreed in open court, it seems it is normal Met
practice to seize mobiles in order to delete pictures involving them.

Our magistrates court was not the forum to question the principle, but
should London police be destroying evidence that might help courts
come to a proper decision? And is it reasonable that the only film
evidence made available is that which the arresting officers have seen
and which has been denied the accused until the last minute?

If we are to have a surveillance society, perhaps the watching should
be both ways - monitoring officials as well as the public.
Simon Neave
London"

[Maria]

Post by Alang
Letter in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/24/police-public-surveillance
"Last Friday I sat as a JP, judging an unemployed man accused of
assaulting a policeman, mostly in view of a council street camera. He
had earlier been refused legal aid and the Crown Prosecution Service
had denied him advance access to the pictures. He only saw them when
we did, during his trial.

How is that allowed then? I don't anything much about evidence rules,
but surely in order to form a defence, you have to know what there is?

Post by Alang
He told us that a passerby had also filmed the incident on a mobile.
He was right. We saw the photographer on the council tape. The
defendant said police had demanded the person's mobile and deleted the
pictures. When asked in court, the officer confirmed that this was the
case, the reason being to stop police being on YouTube. From the
casual way it was agreed in open court, it seems it is normal Met
practice to seize mobiles in order to delete pictures involving them.
Our magistrates court was not the forum to question the principle, but
should London police be destroying evidence that might help courts
come to a proper decision? And is it reasonable that the only film
evidence made available is that which the arresting officers have seen
and which has been denied the accused until the last minute?
If we are to have a surveillance society, perhaps the watching should
be both ways - monitoring officials as well as the public.
Simon Neave
London"

I wonder if the person was convicted?

[Alang]

Post by Maria

Post by Alang
Letter in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/24/police-public-surveillance
"Last Friday I sat as a JP, judging an unemployed man accused of
assaulting a policeman, mostly in view of a council street camera. He
had earlier been refused legal aid and the Crown Prosecution Service
had denied him advance access to the pictures. He only saw them when
we did, during his trial.

How is that allowed then? I don't anything much about evidence rules,
but surely in order to form a defence, you have to know what there is?

I thought that too. Looks like NuLab have buggered up the justice
system even more than first appeared

Post by Maria

Post by Alang
He told us that a passerby had also filmed the incident on a mobile.
He was right. We saw the photographer on the council tape. The
defendant said police had demanded the person's mobile and deleted the
pictures. When asked in court, the officer confirmed that this was the
case, the reason being to stop police being on YouTube. From the
casual way it was agreed in open court, it seems it is normal Met
practice to seize mobiles in order to delete pictures involving them.
Our magistrates court was not the forum to question the principle, but
should London police be destroying evidence that might help courts
come to a proper decision? And is it reasonable that the only film
evidence made available is that which the arresting officers have seen
and which has been denied the accused until the last minute?
If we are to have a surveillance society, perhaps the watching should
be both ways - monitoring officials as well as the public.
Simon Neave
London"

I wonder if the person was convicted?

I hope not when evidence was wilfully destroyed but in this country...

[Al]

Post by Alang
Letter in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/24/police-public-surveillance
"Last Friday I sat as a JP, judging an unemployed man accused of
assaulting a policeman, mostly in view of a council street camera. He
had earlier been refused legal aid and the Crown Prosecution Service
had denied him advance access to the pictures. He only saw them when
we did, during his trial.
He told us that a passerby had also filmed the incident on a mobile.
He was right. We saw the photographer on the council tape. The
defendant said police had demanded the person's mobile and deleted the
pictures. When asked in court, the officer confirmed that this was the
case, the reason being to stop police being on YouTube. From the
casual way it was agreed in open court, it seems it is normal Met
practice to seize mobiles in order to delete pictures involving them.
Our magistrates court was not the forum to question the principle, but
should London police be destroying evidence that might help courts
come to a proper decision? And is it reasonable that the only film
evidence made available is that which the arresting officers have seen
and which has been denied the accused until the last minute?
If we are to have a surveillance society, perhaps the watching should
be both ways - monitoring officials as well as the public.
Simon Neave
London"

I'm surprised folks in England are allowed cell-phone cameras at all, don't
they offend pious Muslims?