Admissable evidence in cort...

I was looking at some evidence on our friend Abu Hamza al-Masri. The police stated that they were aware of his activities, but as evidence such as telephone intercepts is not admissable no further action could be taken:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Police face criticism over Hamza
Abu Hamza
Abu Hamza was found guilty of 11 out of 15 charges
Police are facing questions over why they did not act sooner against radical Muslim preacher Abu Hamza al-Masri.

Detectives were "very alert" to the activities of the cleric - jailed on Tuesday for seven years for inciting murder and racial hatred - in 1999.

But the 47-year-old, from London, was not arrested until 2004.

Anti-terror police say evidence was sent to prosecutors "on several occasions" but no action was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service.

But BBC correspondent Rory MacLean said CPS decisions not to proceed had probably been based on the proposition that a conviction was unlikely.

"Particularly if there was evidence - or at least the police had seen things like telephone intercepts - which is not allowed in British courts, the CPS has to take a view about whether a case will actually succeed at trial," he added.


ABU HAMZA VERDICTS
Guilty of 6 charges of soliciting to murder
Guilty of 3 charges related to "stirring up racial hatred"
Guilty of 1 charge of owning recordings related to "stirring up racial hatred"
Guilty of 1 charge of possessing "terrorist encyclopaedia"
Not guilty of 3 charges of soliciting to murder
Not guilty of 1 charge related to "stirring up racial hatred"

Charges in full

UK police had interviewed Abu Hamza during 1999 over alleged involvement in terror plots in Yemen, but no charges were brought.

He was eventually arrested in 2004 following an extradition request from the US, but charged five months later with offences relating to his activities in the UK.

Former anti-terrorism officer Charles Shoebridge said he thought no action was taken against Abu Hamza for so long because the authorities had a "misplaced fear of alienating mainstream Muslim opinion".

"The more you look... the more you come to the uncomfortable conclusion that not operational reasons or evidential reasons or legal reasons come to the fore when you look at the decisions not to take action against people like Abu Hamza, but more political reasons," he told BBC News.

On Tuesday, Abu Hamza was convicted of inciting murder and racial hatred and possession of a terrorist document, after a trial at London's Old Bailey.

The preacher could still face extradition to the US on terrorism charges when he is released from jail in Britain.

Mosque raided

Abu Hamza has been blamed for radicalising Muslims who prayed at Finsbury Park Mosque, in north London, where he was imam until 2003.

A police search of the mosque that year led to the discovery of forged passports, CS gas, knives and guns and it was closed down.

Abu Hamza
Abu Hamza was imam at the Finsbury Park mosque

Egyptian-born Abu Hamza continued to preach outside the mosque, but following his arrest in 2004 more than 3,000 audio cassettes and 600 videos were found of speeches intended for wider distribution.

And a terror manual - an encyclopaedia of Afghani Jihad - found at his west London home listed Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty as possible targets for an attack.

During his trial, the jury listened to recordings of his sermons where he described Jews as the "enemy of Islam".

He was convicted of 11 of the 15 charges he faced and will remain at Belmarsh high security prison, where he has been held since his arrest in 2004.

It is understood he will be eligible for parole in 2008.

Meanwhile, Scotland Yard has denied newspaper reports linking the preacher to the four British-born Muslims who killed 52 people when they bombed London's transport network on 7 July last year.

A spokesman said: "We have no evidence at this stage that any of those involved had connections with Abu Hamza."

Does the floor feel that it is right that entire classes of evidence should be deemed inadmissable, or is it felt that this should be made on a case by case setting based on advice from independant experts in the relevent field?

~:smoking:

I've never understood what is wrong with wire tap evidence. It seems one of the strongest forms of evidence to me (much better than Joe Bloggs saying he remembers witnessing something that happened months or years ago).

Former anti-terrorism officer Charles Shoebridge said he thought no action was taken against Abu Hamza for so long because the authorities had a "misplaced fear of alienating mainstream Muslim opinion".

"The more you look... the more you come to the uncomfortable conclusion that not operational reasons or evidential reasons or legal reasons come to the fore when you look at the decisions not to take action against people like Abu Hamza, but more political reasons,"
Thats strange as mainstream muslim opinion was that Hamza was a dangerous lunatic, so it cannot be the reason .
I wonder if Charles Shoebridge is aware that much of the evidence used was gathered with the assistance of Hamzas "right hand man" (cruel I know:laugh4: ) who just by coincidence was working for the anti terrorism agencies . There was no political sensativities at work , what was at work was the covert infiltration of a dangerous extremist network to monitor what was being said and to whom it was being said .

I can't speak for the UK, but in the US wiretap laws are generally as follows:

Anyone can record a conversation that they are part of, even if the other party is not aware that they are being recorded.

Law enforcement agencies can record a conversation between third parties who are both/all unware of the recording IF they have a warrent.

The latter is usually the one that comes under scrutiny. It exists to protect the population from a Big Brother type of government. The current debate in re: NSA wiretapping revolves around the fact that they have been doing it without getting warrents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_%28law%29

some interesting info that might shed some light on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I can't speak for the UK, but in the US wiretap laws are generally as follows:

Anyone can record a conversation that they are part of, even if the other party is not aware that they are being recorded.

---

While it varies from place to place, I know in many areas recording someone without their consent is illegal. That's why, for example, when you call 800 numbers they almost invariably include a disclaimer to the effect of "Your call may be recorded for quality control purposes"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

I've never understood what is wrong with wire tap evidence. It seems one of the strongest forms of evidence to me (much better than Joe Bloggs saying he remembers witnessing something that happened months or years ago).

---

I had a discussion on this not so long ago. Wire taping is an illegal activity, except if it's done by the authorities in certain occassions. Nontheless it's still an amoral activity, the use of such means to "catch" wrongdoers is debatable. What is out of discussion is the use of such means as evidence, it's dismissed because it might be unreliable and because it's the product of such an activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I had a discussion on this not so long ago. Wire taping is an illegal activity, except if it's done by the authorities in certain occassions. Nontheless it's still an amoral activity, the use of such means to "catch" wrongdoers is debatable. What is out of discussion is the use of such means as evidence, it's dismissed because it might be unreliable and because it's the product of such an activity.

---

Well almost all types of evidence might be unreliable - as I said, I'd regard wiretap evidence as prima facie more reliable than witness memory. Yes, it could be doctored by the prosecution or intelligence services, but then if the state was bad enough, they could do looks of things to stitch people up - plant false evidence, bury exonerating evidence, get false witnesses etc. And it's not clear that technically such doctoring is more problematic than any other tampering with evidence (e.g. technicians can often tell when a recording has been edited).

I don't see anything particularly problematic about recording what people say. Yes, there are privacy issues but in my mind these pale into insignificance when we are discussing serious crimes like terrorism and murder.

And I'm curious as to why wiretapping is so bad when video recording (and CCTV recording) seem relatively unproblematic (police cars are now routinely being fitted with video recorders).

I wonder ... in a future world where there are CCTVs and wiretaps on every street corner, maybe there would be no crime? Or at least, no unsolved crime. What do Christians say to encourage morality? God sees everything. Sounds a reasonable way of trying to get good out of a sinful world.