Tory MP arrested over leaks

[Azrael]

Not really. You dont need a warrant to search somewhere where a controlling authority (in this case the Speaker, given that this was an office) consents for that area to be searched (as appears to have happened in this case); nor do you need a warrant for a search of an address that has taken place after arrest for an arrestable offence (under s18 of PACE, which the Tories brought in).

This case highlights why Section 18 of PACE (warrantless searches after arrest) is a menace to liberty. One that, bizarrely, goes unchallenged. Would the police have arrested Mr Green if it didn't trigger the search power? Even if they were required to, such invasive measures should be authorised by a judge and strictly limited in their scope. (The cops rifled through old love letters. In America this would get evidence tossed.)

I've yet to see any campaign from so-called civil libertarians to repeal PACE. They seem wedded to big slogans rather than the boring nitty-gritty on which freedom rests.

I note that Mr Green's 15-year-old daughter is now on a police database for "coming into contact with the police". (She committed the heinous offence of coming home while her father's house was being ransacked.)

To be fair to the cops, they are now burdened with ensuring any children who happen to be present during a search fulfill five criteria from the No Child Left Behind scheme. Orwellian and absurd in equal measure.

Kafka would piss himself laughing.

 

[two sheds]

That is nonsensical. Even if Boris was a cop there would be nothing wrong with him speaking to (or even defending publically) Greene, as long as he wasnt part of the investigation, or a witness, and made others aware of contact between the two.

Yes, the talking to Greene doesn't seem all that heinous, depending on what he said. Boris is Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, though, and speaking out in his official capacity on behalf of a chum might prejudice any enquiry.

 

[laptop]

civil libertarians ... seem wedded to big slogans rather than the boring nitty-gritty on which freedom rests.

Er, no.

I've not known trainspottery attention to detail in a better cause

It wouldn't be that only the big slogans manage to grab your attention, perchance?

 

[Azrael]

Er, no.

I've not known trainspottery attention to detail in a better cause

It wouldn't be that only the big slogans manage to grab your attention, perchance?

Well I trawl Liberty's site on a regular basis and I haven't seen any high-profile and ongoing campaign to abolish PACE, or at least repeal its worst excesses. Nothing about repealing Sections 18 & 32.

I've also failed to see any campaign to restore unanimous jury verdicts. The privilidge against self-incrimination gets a look in from time to time, but in generally emotive terms.

Also, their high profile "charge or release" campaign actually seems to mean: 28 days OK; 42 days evil incarnate.

If you've got some links to the contrary, I'll happily admit my error and sign up for the relevant campaigns.

 

[agricola]

This case highlights why Section 18 of PACE (warrantless searches after arrest) is a menace to liberty. One that, bizarrely, goes unchallenged. Would the police have arrested Mr Green if it didn't trigger the search power? Even if they were required to, such invasive measures should be authorised by a judge and strictly limited in their scope. (The cops rifled through old love letters. In America this would get evidence tossed.)

I've yet to see any campaign from so-called civil libertarians to repeal PACE. They seem wedded to big slogans rather than the boring nitty-gritty on which freedom rests.

I note that Mr Green's 15-year-old daughter is now on a police database for "coming into contact with the police". (She committed the heinous offence of coming home while her father's house was being ransacked.)

To be fair to the cops, they are now burdened with ensuring any children who happen to be present during a search fulfill five criteria from the No Child Left Behind scheme. Orwellian and absurd in equal measure.

Kafka would piss himself laughing.

Its difficult to see how PACE would be improved by this or any prospective administration - they would in all likelyhood replace it with something worse. In some ways its amazing that PACE was brought in by the Thatcher government, given that how (especially in the last ten years) it has been made considerably more powerful, and when you consider what it replaced.

As for s18, it is open to review subsequently and the Courts do throw out searches authorised under it, and one would imagine most s18 searches (even most s18(5) searches) would be authorised by a magistrate anyway.

Finally, you are correct about the nonsense with regards to the come-to-notice system, though it is the Government who have imposed that.

 

[Azrael]

Its difficult to see how PACE would be improved by this or any prospective administration - they would in all likelyhood replace it with something worse.

You're right, politicians are instinctive bureaucrats and centralisers, but if an alliance of civil libertarians and the law & order lobby launched a determined and noisy campaign from to scrap PACE, we might get somewhere.

Problem is no major organisation looks at root causes. The purpose behind PACE's Brazilesque codes is simple: stopping police from beating confessions out of suspects. This could be achieved by copying the USA's Miranda Rights, a simple and flexible system supported by cops and lawyers alike. PACE turns police into impotent investigative magistrates: with powers of compulsory interrogation, bail and search, but not the power to promptly charge hellions. It's alien to our common law and, farcically, it simultaneously threatens the innocent and protects the guilty. Bravo Westminster.

As for Section 18, the purpose of warrants is to stop unreasonable searches instead of compensating their victims. The treatment of Mr Green and other unpublicised thousands is a disgrace. You're surely correct in saying that JPs would rubber stamp most warrants; that's why the burden of proof should be bumped up to "reasonable belief". But even "reasonable suspicion" would stop the most outrageous cock-ups.

 

[lostexpectation]

have they not sacked that seargent at arms, i think it was right to say a logistics person (janitor) was not suitable over the previous military personal.