If you're accused of a crime, do you have to be told what it is?

[Commander Kinsey]

If you're accused of a crime (which is still under investigation, and you're a suspect), do you have to be told what it is? So you can prepare a defence for example. Or can they keep details a secret to avoid people hiding evidence?

[Dr Dave]

On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 06:00:03 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> If you're accused of a crime (which is still under investigation, and you're a suspect), do you have to be told what it is? So you can prepare a defence for example. Or can they keep details a secret to avoid people hiding evidence?

Pedantically, if you’ve been accused you have been told. But generally speaking you don’t have to be told. There are many forms of investigation ranging from private investigators, employment investigations and Police investigations for example. All of these can decide to take no further action without informing you (even if their was evidence of guilt).

If you ever get charged (or have other proceedings issued against you) then you are of course told. You couldn’t really proceed to court action without having the opportunity to gather or present evidence.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 07:46:50 +0100, Dr Dave <david.christ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 06:00:03 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> If you're accused of a crime (which is still under investigation, and you're a suspect), do you have to be told what it is? So you can prepare a defence for example. Or can they keep details a secret to avoid people hiding evidence?
>

> Pedantically, if you’ve been accused you have been told.

But not necessarily exactly what the crime was.

> But generally speaking you don’t have to be told. There are many forms of investigation ranging from private investigators, employment investigations and Police investigations for example. All of these can decide to take no further action without informing you (even if their was evidence of guilt).
>
> If you ever get charged (or have other proceedings issued against you) then you are of course told. You couldn’t really proceed to court action without having the opportunity to gather or present evidence.

What I mean is, is it ok for the police to say "We're investigating a crime which took place, and you're a suspect", then proceed to tell you very few details. Do you have the right to know what crime they're investigating and where and when it took place, so you can prepare a defence?

[Norman Wells]

'Suspect' is not a legal status.

If you're arrested, you have to be told what you're being arrested on
suspicion of.

If you're charged, you have to be told what you're being charged with.

Otherwise, you don't have a right to be told anything.

Anyway, isn't it a bit revealing to want to prepare a defence to
something that hasn't yet been specified?

[David McNeish]

On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 09:07:32 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> What I mean is, is it ok for the police to say "We're investigating a crime which took place, and you're a suspect", then proceed to tell you very few details. Do you have the right to know what crime they're investigating and where and when it took place, so you can prepare a defence?

Why are you asking? It doesn't sound like the sort of thing which actually happens.

But even if it does, you're not really disadvantaged by not being told at an early
stage - you'll get told what they're talking about if and when they arrest you. And
then you can say no comment and go away and think about your defence.

[Max Demian]

On 19/06/2022 09:07, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 19/06/2022 05:33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> If you're accused of a crime (which is still under investigation, and
>> you're a suspect), do you have to be told what it is?  So you can
>> prepare a defence for example.  Or can they keep details a secret to
>> avoid people hiding evidence?
>
> 'Suspect' is not a legal status.
>
> If you're arrested, you have to be told what you're being arrested on
> suspicion of.

Is that actually true? (Just asking.)

> If you're charged, you have to be told what you're being charged with.

Obviously.

> Otherwise, you don't have a right to be told anything.

Supposedly the police have to give you evidence that might exonerate
you. How does that work in practice, as the police are in the business
of prosecuting you, and have access to virtually unlimited funds for
forensics &c.?

--
Max Demian

[Colin Bignell]

The Police collect evidence and arrest suspects, but they are not in the
business of prosecuting anybody. As the name suggests, that is the job
of the Crown Prosecution Service.

--
Colin Bignell

[David McNeish]

On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 11:16:40 UTC+1, Max Demian wrote:
> On 19/06/2022 09:07, Norman Wells wrote:
> > On 19/06/2022 05:33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> >> If you're accused of a crime (which is still under investigation, and
> >> you're a suspect), do you have to be told what it is? So you can
> >> prepare a defence for example. Or can they keep details a secret to
> >> avoid people hiding evidence?
> >
> > 'Suspect' is not a legal status.
> >
> > If you're arrested, you have to be told what you're being arrested on
> > suspicion of.
> Is that actually true? (Just asking.)

Yes - if we're talking about England or Wales then s.28 of PACE says:

"no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground
for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/28

and similar in Scotland:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/1/section/3

> Supposedly the police have to give you evidence that might exonerate
> you. How does that work in practice, as the police are in the business
> of prosecuting you, and have access to virtually unlimited funds for
> forensics &c.?

It's not the police who prosecute - but the prosecution do need to
disclose evidence during the pre-trial process. Despite what you see in
fiction, trials aren't full of surprise evidence or witnesses dashing in at
the last minute. You're right about the disparty in resources though - the
defence might only be able to cast doubt on the prosecution evidence
rather than e.g. bring in their own expert witnesses etc.

[RustyHinge]

On 19/06/2022 11:16, Max Demian wrote:

> On 19/06/2022 09:07, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 19/06/2022 05:33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> If you're accused of a crime (which is still under investigation, and
>>> you're a suspect), do you have to be told what it is?  So you can
>>> prepare a defence for example.  Or can they keep details a secret to
>>> avoid people hiding evidence?
>>
>> 'Suspect' is not a legal status.
>>
>> If you're arrested, you have to be told what you're being arrested on
>> suspicion of.
>
> Is that actually true? (Just asking.)

Yes. Just saying...

>> If you're charged, you have to be told what you're being charged with.
>
> Obviously.
>
>> Otherwise, you don't have a right to be told anything.
>
> Supposedly the police have to give you evidence that might exonerate
> you. How does that work in practice, as the police are in the business
> of prosecuting you, and have access to virtually unlimited funds for
> forensics &c.?

It doesn't work, in practice - allegedly.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

[GB]

On 19/06/2022 11:16, Max Demian wrote:

> On 19/06/2022 09:07, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 19/06/2022 05:33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> If you're accused of a crime (which is still under investigation, and
>>> you're a suspect), do you have to be told what it is?  So you can
>>> prepare a defence for example.  Or can they keep details a secret to
>>> avoid people hiding evidence?
>>
>> 'Suspect' is not a legal status.
>>
>> If you're arrested, you have to be told what you're being arrested on
>> suspicion of.
>
> Is that actually true? (Just asking.)

Yes. It's true. (Just pontificating.)

Here's a reference:

Under PACE 1984, a police officer must inform a person that they are
under arrest and the reason why. A failure to do so will render the
arrest unlawful. PACE 1984 expressly preserves certain powers of arrest
without a warrant enacted prior to PACE 1984.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/corporatecrime/document/391421/55KB-9471-F188-N193-00000-00/Arrest_and_detention_overview#:~:text=Under%20PACE%201984%2C%20a%20police,enacted%20prior%20to%20PACE%201984.

>
>> If you're charged, you have to be told what you're being charged with.
>
> Obviously.
>
>> Otherwise, you don't have a right to be told anything.
>
> Supposedly the police have to give you evidence that might exonerate
> you. How does that work in practice, as the police are in the business
> of prosecuting you, and have access to virtually unlimited funds for
> forensics &c.?
>

You tend to hear of the cases where it's worked badly?

[Norman Wells]

If you didn't do whatever it is, you must have been elsewhere. I don't
see how you can prepare to be anywhere other than where you were unless
you want to set up a false alibi and need to know where it was you are
not supposed to have been.

[Commander Kinsey]

Not if you know you haven't done it and want to try to get an alibi, or maybe you even know of someone who might have set you up and could help the police?

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 09:40:20 +0100, David McNeish <davi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 09:07:32 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>> What I mean is, is it ok for the police to say "We're investigating a crime which took place, and you're a suspect", then proceed to tell you very few details. Do you have the right to know what crime they're investigating and where and when it took place, so you can prepare a defence?
>
> Why are you asking? It doesn't sound like the sort of thing which actually happens.

It has happened. I'm not giving details.

> But even if it does, you're not really disadvantaged by not being told at an early
> stage - you'll get told what they're talking about if and when they arrest you. And
> then you can say no comment and go away and think about your defence.

You cannot just go away, you have to get bail.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 11:16:23 +0100, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> On 19/06/2022 09:07, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 19/06/2022 05:33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> If you're accused of a crime (which is still under investigation, and
>>> you're a suspect), do you have to be told what it is? So you can
>>> prepare a defence for example. Or can they keep details a secret to
>>> avoid people hiding evidence?
>>
>> 'Suspect' is not a legal status.
>>
>> If you're arrested, you have to be told what you're being arrested on
>> suspicion of.
>
> Is that actually true? (Just asking.)

I would hope so!

>> If you're charged, you have to be told what you're being charged with.
>
> Obviously.
>
>> Otherwise, you don't have a right to be told anything.
>
> Supposedly the police have to give you evidence that might exonerate
> you. How does that work in practice, as the police are in the business
> of prosecuting you, and have access to virtually unlimited funds for
> forensics &c.?

The police presumably don't get a bonus if they manage to prosecute you, they're just interested in justice. So if they find evidence which means they were actually wrong, they should be quite happy to let you go free so they can concentrate on finding the real criminal and not wasting taxes feeding you in jail.

[TTman]

On 19/06/2022 12:28, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:02:08 +0100, Colin Bignell
> <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> The Police collect evidence and arrest suspects, but they are not in the
>> business of prosecuting anybody. As the name suggests, that is the job
>> of the Crown Prosecution Service.
>

> Are these documents inaccurate?
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-led-prosecution-list-of-offences
>
> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/317934/Full_list_of_specified_offences.pdf
>
No. Special case, police prosecute driving offences generally except
perhaps the most serious- death by dangerous driving etc. But then that
specific offence is probably a criminal offence and can only be brought
by CPS.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Norman Wells]

You either have an alibi or you don't. What do you mean by 'try to get'
one?

[JNugent]

What does "accused" mean?

Arrested?

Charged?

Given a court date?

Something else?

[Commander Kinsey]

I always thought CPS meant Child Protection Service, since that's about the only time they get in the paper.

[Commander Kinsey]

I don't think that's morally right. Let's say you're unfairly dismissed. You have some damning evidence against your employer. If you're allowed to keep it secret, so he goes ahead with firing you, then you take him to court and he thinks you don't have a leg to stand on, you can then show him up as a fraudster and get him in severe trouble.

[David McNeish]

The point is you don't get immediately dragged into a trial. You'll have time to
prepare a defence anyway.

[Jon Ribbens]

That's not how any of this works. You don't get to suddenly come up
with surprise evidence in court. It's not like American TV dramas
where the police are still investigating while the trial is on-going
and bringing their latest revelations into the court each day.

You have to disclose everything you're going to use well in advance.
To do otherwise would result in total farce whereby the opposing sides
keep coming up with surprise evidence and the trial has to be halted
to allow the the other side to examine it and see if they can come up
with rebuttal evidence, and then time would have to be given to examine
*that* evidence, and so on and so on.

[Norman Wells]

Even if he is a fraudster, that has no bearing on whether your dismissal
was unfair, which is all the tribunal will be concerned about.

[Max Demian]

Of course the actual prosecution is done by the court, but I don't see
how it can be in the interests of the police *not* to ensure you are
prosecuted unless it turns out someone else committed the crime (and
that comes to light before they all retire).

I am somewhat mystified about all this fuss about the police scanning
women's phones in rape cases. Surely any text messages &c. could only
serve to exonerate the defendant. I would have thought only the defence
lawyers would be interested in this, or are the police being super diligent?

--
Max Demian

[JNugent]

On 19/06/2022 05:43 pm, Max Demian wrote:

> On 19/06/2022 13:55, David McNeish wrote:
>> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 11:16:40 UTC+1, Max Demian wrote:
>
>>> Supposedly the police have to give you evidence that might exonerate
>>> you. How does that work in practice, as the police are in the business
>>> of prosecuting you, and have access to virtually unlimited funds for
>>> forensics &c.?
>
>> It's not the police who prosecute - but the prosecution do need to
>> disclose evidence during the pre-trial process. Despite what you see in
>> fiction, trials aren't full of surprise evidence or witnesses dashing
>> in at the last minute. You're right about the disparty in resources

>> though- the defence might only be able to cast doubt on the prosecution

>> evidence rather than e.g. bring in their own expert witnesses etc.
>
> Of course the actual prosecution is done by the court, but I don't see
> how it can be in the interests of the police *not* to ensure you are
> prosecuted unless it turns out someone else committed the crime (and
> that comes to light before they all retire).
>
> I am somewhat mystified about all this fuss about the police scanning
> women's phones in rape cases. Surely any text messages &c. could only
> serve to exonerate the defendant. I would have thought only the defence
> lawyers would be interested in this, or are the police being super
> diligent?

I'd have thought they wouldn't want to make an arrest, or still less,
put a charge to the person accused, unless they were sure it was the
right thing to so. If the suspected person has given an explanation
which could be checked and either confirmed or dismissed by examination
of the phone, surely no-one would want that to be left in the wind?

My impression is that there is a lot of sex happening out there, and
that most of it is consensual. *If* there were evidence available via a
mobile phone which would tend to be exculpatory, why would the
complainant willingly produce it? What power would a defence solicitor
have to get hold of it?

[Roland Perry]

In message <t8mulm$jih$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:44:07 on Sun, 19 Jun
2022, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:

>>>> If you're accused of a crime (which is still under investigation,
>>>>and you're a suspect), do you have to be told what it is?  So you
>>>>can prepare a defence for example.  Or can they keep details a
>>>>secret to avoid people hiding evidence?
>>>
>>> 'Suspect' is not a legal status.
>>>
>>> If you're arrested, you have to be told what you're being arrested
>>>on suspicion of.
>> Is that actually true? (Just asking.)
>
>Yes. It's true. (Just pontificating.)
>
>Here's a reference:
>
>Under PACE 1984, a police officer must inform a person that they are
>under arrest and the reason why. A failure to do so will render the
>arrest unlawful. PACE 1984 expressly preserves certain powers of arrest
>without a warrant enacted prior to PACE 1984.
>
>https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/corporatecrime/document/391421/55
>KB-9471-F188-N193-00000-00/Arrest_and_detention_overview#:~:text=Under%2
>0PACE%201984%2C%20a%20police,enacted%20prior%20to%20PACE%201984.

I'm not sure the OP has said who is doing the accusing. I could accuse
someone of dropping litter in my front garden, and although highly
unlikely to pique their interest the council might send an environmental
health inspector to *investigate*, and they could then say "it's below
our threshold for prosecution, and anyway you have no independent
witnesses".

They don't have write a report and send it to the person I accused.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <_dWdnSLoHJu0zzL_...@brightview.co.uk>, at
17:43:20 on Sun, 19 Jun 2022, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
remarked:

What the police are looking for is evidence that the complainant had
given implied consent via the communications on the phone (because
that's what the accused apparently sometimes claims).

Because that claim only surfaces much later, they have to gather the
evidence immediately, because it might be deleted either accidentally,
deliberately, or just churn away in the normal course of events; just
like they gather fingerprints immediately, and not after they've
arrested a suspect.

The complainants commonly have two issues with this process - one is the
invasion of privacy, and the other is the police tend to take a year to
do the forensics, and they are without their phone.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 01:26:28 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On 19/06/2022 05:43 pm, Max Demian wrote:
>>
>> I am somewhat mystified about all this fuss about the police scanning
>> women's phones in rape cases. Surely any text messages &c. could only
>> serve to exonerate the defendant. I would have thought only the defence
>> lawyers would be interested in this, or are the police being super
>> diligent?
>
>I'd have thought they wouldn't want to make an arrest, or still less,
>put a charge to the person accused, unless they were sure it was the
>right thing to so. If the suspected person has given an explanation
>which could be checked and either confirmed or dismissed by examination
>of the phone, surely no-one would want that to be left in the wind?

Also, the police are an independent third party. They are not the agents of the
complanaint. While the majority of complainants are honest, in that the vast
majority of people who call 999 or 101 or drop into a police station to report
an incident genuinely believe that they are victims of, or have witnessed, a
crime, the reality is that people's perceptions can be skewed or unreliable and
not every complaint is actually a report of a crime. So a key part of a police
investigation, particularly in the early stages, is to satisfy themselves that a
crime has been committed or, at least, is sufficiently likely to have been
committed to justify more detailed investigation. That's not just for the sake
of saving the police time and money that they don't need to expend on
investigating something which never happened, but as part of their commitment to
natural justice for everybody.

Plus, there are rules on disclosure of evidence should it come to court. If it
turned out that the police couldn't disclose potentially relevant evidence
because they hadn't bothered to collect it in the first place, then that would
damage the prosecution's case.

Counsel for the proscution: Mr police witness, can you confirm that you
checked the complainant's phone for any messages which might support or
contradict her account.

Police witness: Yes, we fully examined her phone. It contained nothing
contradicting her account. The only messages on it were entirely
irrelevant to her complaint.

Counsel for the proscution: No futher questions, your honour.

or

Counsel for the defence: Mr police witness, can you confirm that you
checked the complainant's phone for any messages which might support or
contradict her account.

Police witness: No, we did not check the complainant's phone.

Counsel for the defence: So you cannot be sure that it did not contain
messages which contradicted her account of the incident?

Police witness: No, I cannot.

Counsel for the defence: No futher questions, your honour.

Assuming that both cases are otherwise entirely identical in terms of evidence
and witness statements, which do you think is most likely to result in a verdict
of guilty?

Mark

[GB]

On 20/06/2022 06:00, Roland Perry wrote:

> I'm not sure the OP has said who is doing the accusing. I could accuse
> someone of dropping litter in my front garden, and although highly
> unlikely to pique their interest the council might send an environmental
> health inspector to *investigate*, and they could then say "it's below
> our threshold for prosecution, and anyway you have no independent
> witnesses".
>
> They don't have write a report and send it to the person I accused.

This contrasts nicely with TV licensing, who seem only too willing to
accuse me of a crime without a shred of evidence. :)

[Commander Kinsey]

It is possible to be in the same place as someone else. You could be where a crime took place, not have seen it, then get blamed because you were there.

In any case, time is needed to get hold of alibis.

[Commander Kinsey]

Told you're a suspect.

[Commander Kinsey]

An alibi could require another person to say you were somewhere. You need to find out if they know and are willing to say so.

[Commander Kinsey]

Depends how serious the crime is.

[Commander Kinsey]

I meant damning evidence to do with the dismissal. Perhaps he caused the explosion he's blaming you for.

[David McNeish]

No, it doesn't. If you plead not guilty then the trial will be way off in the future.

[RustyHinge]

I'm waiting for them to put-up or shut-up too. I told them a while ago
that I don't have an idiots' lantern and my age (meaning I don't *need*
to pay for a licence), and anyway, it isn't an offence to *not* have a
goggle-box.

fifteen years or so later tey are still phishing...

I'm 82 and if I wanted, could probably use this laptop and the
intertubes to access chargeable material, but I find the pictures on
steam radio are so much better.

Go on, TV Licensing - take me to court!

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

[Norman Wells]

Well, what you're describing is an unfair dismissal case in an
employment tribunal. It's not a criminal case with a prosecution and an
accused, nor are there any disclosure rules that apply. You would be
the claimant, and the onus is on you to prove your case on the balance
of probabilities in whatever way you can.

[JNugent]

That doesn't sound like a credible scenario.

A suspected person might be arrested. They would be interviewed or
invited to make a statement.

[Fredxx]

Given the complaints into privacy of alleged victims, one result could
be: "The complainant refused the police access to her phone" and so "the
court should infer she was hiding messages of a nature that might
contradict her account".

[Max Demian]

Why don't they just do an image copy of the mass storage (including
deleted material)?

--
Max Demian

[Commander Kinsey]

You still get the night in jail until you get bail.

[Fredxx]

On 20/06/2022 14:41, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 10:02:44 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> This contrasts nicely with TV licensing, who seem only too willing to
>> accuse me of a crime without a shred of evidence. :)
>

> Please quote verbatim or share an image of any such accusation.

I can assure you the terms used sail very close to the wind, like "you
are committing an offence" ..... with an "if" at some point to make the
point conditional.

With the numbers of letters they send out it must cost a fortune.

[Roland Perry]

In message <t8pd3j$c3c$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:02:44 on Mon, 20 Jun
2022, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:

Only if you over-read the letters they send premises without TV
licences.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <h4mdnf4hqJ_O5S3_...@brightview.co.uk>, at
14:38:28 on Mon, 20 Jun 2022, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
remarked:

>> The complainants commonly have two issues with this process - one is
>>the invasion of privacy, and the other is the police tend to take a
>>year to do the forensics, and they are without their phone.
>
>Why don't they just do an image copy of the mass storage (including
>deleted material)?

Because most of the data will be "in the cloud" accessible by
credentials stored on the phone. And even if all they wanted to do was
mirror the flash-ROM in the phone, there's a one year queue in the
forensics department.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1n2af...@ryzen.home>, at 13:31:56 on Mon, 20 Jun
2022, Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> remarked:

By whom?
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 06:07:44 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <_dWdnSLoHJu0zzL_...@brightview.co.uk>, at
>17:43:20 on Sun, 19 Jun 2022, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
>remarked:
>

>>I am somewhat mystified about all this fuss about the police scanning
>>women's phones in rape cases. Surely any text messages &c. could only
>>serve to exonerate the defendant. I would have thought only the defence
>>lawyers would be interested in this, or are the police being super
>>diligent?
>
>What the police are looking for is evidence that the complainant had
>given implied consent via the communications on the phone (because
>that's what the accused apparently sometimes claims).

Or, that the complainant's communications or prior interaction with the accused
gave the accused reasonable grounds to believe that consent had been given,
which isn't quite the same thing but has much the same effect.

>The complainants commonly have two issues with this process - one is the
>invasion of privacy, and the other is the police tend to take a year to
>do the forensics, and they are without their phone.

The former is, I think, hard to avoid. It's an almost inevitable consequence of
the fact that so many people have so much of their lives tied up with their
phones. The latter I have much more sympathy with, particularly if the phone is
an expensive one that the complainant can't simply replace. I don't think that
"having your phone impounded for forensic examination" is one of the things that
insurance will pay out on. And if you temporarily replace it with a cheaper
phone, you can't necessarily set up the replacement to work the same way as the
old one as the replacement phone might not have the capability.

Mark

[RustyHinge]

On 20/06/2022 14:41, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 10:02:44 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>

>> This contrasts nicely with TV licensing, who seem only too willing to
>> accuse me of a crime without a shred of evidence. :)
>

> Please quote verbatim or share an image of any such accusation.

The mere delivery of some of TV Licencing's threatening letters shouts
"J'Accuse!", with its scarlet envelope and demand for attention.

[Commander Kinsey]

The police.

[Commander Kinsey]

So do the same rules of surprise evidence not apply for civil cases?

[Commander Kinsey]

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:08:10 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On 20/06/2022 01:31 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:48:26 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/06/2022 05:33 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you're accused of a crime (which is still under investigation, and
>>>> you're a suspect), do you have to be told what it is? So you can
>>>> prepare a defence for example. Or can they keep details a secret to
>>>> avoid people hiding evidence?
>>>
>>> What does "accused" mean?
>>>
>>> Arrested?
>>>
>>> Charged?
>>>
>>> Given a court date?
>>>
>>> Something else?
>>
>> Told you're a suspect.
>
> That doesn't sound like a credible scenario.

It is a real scenario.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1n2tc...@ryzen.home>, at 20:20:59 on Mon, 20 Jun

2022, Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> remarked:
>On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 17:04:54 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <op.1n2af...@ryzen.home>, at 13:31:56 on Mon, 20 Jun
>> 2022, Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> remarked:
>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:48:26 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/06/2022 05:33 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you're accused of a crime (which is still under investigation, and
>>>>> you're a suspect), do you have to be told what it is? So you can
>>>>> prepare a defence for example. Or can they keep details a secret to
>>>>> avoid people hiding evidence?
>>>>
>>>> What does "accused" mean?
>>>>
>>>> Arrested?
>>>>
>>>> Charged?
>>>>
>>>> Given a court date?
>>>>
>>>> Something else?
>>>
>>> Told you're a suspect.
>>
>> By whom?
>
>The police.

I see. The police have said you are a suspect, but not given the nature
of the alleged transgression, nor formally interviewed you about it.

That does seem a bit odd.
--
Roland Perry

[TTman]

>> Well, what you're describing is an unfair dismissal case in an
>> employment tribunal.  It's not a criminal case with a prosecution and an
>> accused, nor are there any disclosure rules that apply.  You would be
>> the claimant, and the onus is on you to prove your case on the balance
>> of probabilities in whatever way you can.
>
> So do the same rules of surprise evidence not apply for civil cases?

Surprises are NOT allowed in civil cases.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Max Demian]

Not if you are bailed by the police.

--
Max Demian

[Roland Perry]

In message <84a1bh5ilb263vtea...@4ax.com>, at 18:15:18 on
Mon, 20 Jun 2022, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 06:07:44 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <_dWdnSLoHJu0zzL_...@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>17:43:20 on Sun, 19 Jun 2022, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
>>remarked:
>>
>>>I am somewhat mystified about all this fuss about the police scanning
>>>women's phones in rape cases. Surely any text messages &c. could only
>>>serve to exonerate the defendant. I would have thought only the defence
>>>lawyers would be interested in this, or are the police being super
>>>diligent?
>>
>>What the police are looking for is evidence that the complainant had
>>given implied consent via the communications on the phone (because
>>that's what the accused apparently sometimes claims).
>
>Or, that the complainant's communications or prior interaction with the accused
>gave the accused reasonable grounds to believe that consent had been given,
>which isn't quite the same thing but has much the same effect.
>
>>The complainants commonly have two issues with this process - one is the
>>invasion of privacy, and the other is the police tend to take a year to
>>do the forensics, and they are without their phone.
>
>The former is, I think, hard to avoid. It's an almost inevitable consequence of
>the fact that so many people have so much of their lives tied up with their
>phones.

More than that... if you are burgled and the police are interested in
investigating, your house will be thrown open to all manner of forensic
and other persons who will be poking around 'invading your privacy'.

Let alone reporting a rape and having to have a medical examination.

Perhaps people have things on their phone they would rather not share
with *anyone*, but they should perhaps ask themselves why they thought
phones were some sort of sanctuary.

>The latter I have much more sympathy with, particularly if the phone is
>an expensive one that the complainant can't simply replace. I don't
>think that "having your phone impounded for forensic examination" is
>one of the things that insurance will pay out on. And if you
>temporarily replace it with a cheaper phone, you can't necessarily set
>up the replacement to work the same way as the old one as the
>replacement phone might not have the capability.

Nowadays most smartphones will "do Facebook" for £100, even if you
previously chose to have a blingy iPhone 13. From a practical point
of view the most inconvenient thing is having to get a new SIM, with
the original number, especially now there's so much two-factor
authentication.

I'm not up to speed on how well the networks deal[1] with this
situation. Although I'm seriously considering deploying a £10 candy-bar
phone with everlasting PAYG SIM, *just* for the 2FA traffic. Apart
from anything else, the battery will likely last three weeks, whereas
my smartphone might desperately need recharging at the very moment I
need to buy something online (I think my record is needing five 2FA
codes to complete one transaction, some with the sales platform itself
and some with the payment mechanism).

[1] Can you just report the phone as lost (in the criminal justice
system) or stolen?
--
Roland Perry

[RustyHinge]

On 20/06/2022 23:39, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 19:20:55 +0100, RustyHinge
> <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 20/06/2022 14:41, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 10:02:44 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This contrasts nicely with TV licensing, who seem only too willing to
>>>> accuse me of a crime without a shred of evidence. :)
>>>
>>> Please quote verbatim or share an image of any such accusation.
>>
>> The mere delivery of some of TV Licencing's threatening letters shouts
>> "J'Accuse!", with its scarlet envelope and demand for attention.
>

> And if you pay attention you realise no-one has been accused of anything.

Clearly, but how many people think it through? The sceaming red on the
cover is obviously *intended* to accuse, but deniable, of course.

[Fredxx]

Are you honestly saying that the police knocked on your front door, said
you're a suspect in their investigation, and left, saying nothing more?

Something tells me you're leaving an awful lot out of this. On another
thread you were looking for car insurance, could there be any
relationship between the two?

[Commander Kinsey]

Quick question or two during their investigations.

[Commander Kinsey]

I assume this is only done for minor crimes.

[Max Demian]

Why would you assume that? So long as they know where you live, and
don't think you will scarper, it's easier to let you go home and keep
the cells empty for the night's drunks (even if you are arrested on
suspicion of murder); unless they need to spend a long time checking
your house for forensics.

--
Max Demian

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 06:48:47 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <84a1bh5ilb263vtea...@4ax.com>, at 18:15:18 on
>Mon, 20 Jun 2022, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>

>>The latter I have much more sympathy with, particularly if the phone is
>>an expensive one that the complainant can't simply replace. I don't
>>think that "having your phone impounded for forensic examination" is
>>one of the things that insurance will pay out on. And if you
>>temporarily replace it with a cheaper phone, you can't necessarily set
>>up the replacement to work the same way as the old one as the
>>replacement phone might not have the capability.
>
>Nowadays most smartphones will "do Facebook" for £100, even if you
>previously chose to have a blingy iPhone 13. From a practical point
>of view the most inconvenient thing is having to get a new SIM, with
>the original number, especially now there's so much two-factor
>authentication.

These days, if you lose your phone (or it becomes unavailable to you for any
reason), you can simply replace it like for like and restore absolutely
everything from your cloudy backup. You don't have to reinstall anything, or
even log back into anything, it Just Plain Works[tm].

But... for that to work, it has to be like for like, or at list similar for
similar. With Android, you could probably get away with temporarily replacing an
upmarket Samsung with a budget Huawei and most things will work OK even if a few
refuse to install. But it's a lot harder to obtain a budget iOS phone. No
currently on sale iOS phones could be remotely described as "budget", and older
ones bought second hand might well not cope with apps originally installed on a
newer model. And you can't replace an iOS phone with an Android phone and expect
to be able to restore from backups at all.

Now, you might well argue that anyone who prefers an iPhone deserves this kind
of hassle should their phone be seized for forensics. As an Android user myself,
I might even have a tiny bit of sympathy for that point of view. But, actually I
don't think it's at all fair to penalise someone just because they prefer a
different, and more expensive, phone to mine. And sometimes, someone's use case
might make an iPhone the only practical choice. Not all apps are cross platform,
and not all phones integrate into a single ecosystem.

>I'm not up to speed on how well the networks deal[1] with this
>situation. Although I'm seriously considering deploying a £10 candy-bar
>phone with everlasting PAYG SIM, *just* for the 2FA traffic. Apart
>from anything else, the battery will likely last three weeks, whereas
>my smartphone might desperately need recharging at the very moment I
>need to buy something online (I think my record is needing five 2FA
>codes to complete one transaction, some with the sales platform itself
>and some with the payment mechanism).

2FA is one of the main reasons why depriving someone of their phone for any
significant length of time - whether they are complainant or suspect - is close
to unjustifiable. Modern life is moving rapidly towards making a smartphone a
functional requirement of everyday life. It isn't just social media, Candy Crush
Saga and cat videos.

>[1] Can you just report the phone as lost (in the criminal justice
> system) or stolen?

I'd just go online and order a new SIM. The last time I did that, I didn't have
to give a reason. I just clicked a button on screen and it turned up in the post
the next day.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <e9t3bhh6m75797irg...@4ax.com>, at 17:56:56 on
Tue, 21 Jun 2022, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

remarked:
>On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 06:48:47 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <84a1bh5ilb263vtea...@4ax.com>, at 18:15:18 on
>>Mon, 20 Jun 2022, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>remarked:
>>
>>>The latter I have much more sympathy with, particularly if the phone is
>>>an expensive one that the complainant can't simply replace. I don't
>>>think that "having your phone impounded for forensic examination" is
>>>one of the things that insurance will pay out on. And if you
>>>temporarily replace it with a cheaper phone, you can't necessarily set
>>>up the replacement to work the same way as the old one as the
>>>replacement phone might not have the capability.
>>
>>Nowadays most smartphones will "do Facebook" for £100, even if you
>>previously chose to have a blingy iPhone 13. From a practical point
>>of view the most inconvenient thing is having to get a new SIM, with
>>the original number, especially now there's so much two-factor
>>authentication.
>
>These days, if you lose your phone (or it becomes unavailable to you for any
>reason), you can simply replace it like for like and restore absolutely
>everything from your cloudy backup. You don't have to reinstall anything, or
>even log back into anything, it Just Plain Works[tm].

Sadly not. I bought a new phone recently (same vendor never mind same
platform) and it absolutely did not restore everything.

The biggest elephant in that room is that Android will not transfer your
apps from the old phone to the new, but insists on re-downloading them
from the 'store'. If in the mean time that app has been discontinued,
you are SOL.

And even when the app is available, it doesn't always transfer your
credentials (I can imagine some security risk assessment at play here).
So *both* the virtual credit card payment apps I had required me to
completely re-enrol them.

There's also various media apps which have their own backup/restore
processes, and for example I'm not convinced that the new phone will
magically have your WhatsApp history reinstated from the 'Android'
cloud, rather than from their own proprietary mini-cloud.

SMS received are another thing I don't think gets preserved.

>But... for that to work, it has to be like for like, or at list similar
>for similar. With Android, you could probably get away with temporarily
>replacing an upmarket Samsung with a budget Huawei and most things will
>work OK even if a few refuse to install.

So you do have an inkling some refuse.

>But it's a lot harder to obtain a budget iOS phone. No currently on
>sale iOS phones could be remotely described as "budget", and older ones
>bought second hand might well not cope with apps originally installed
>on a newer model.

It's not that hard to buy not very old iOS phones cheap because the
advocates of the Church of Jobs replace them religiously far more often
than they really need to.

>And you can't replace an iOS phone with an Android phone and expect
>to be able to restore from backups at all.

Ok, so it doesn't "Plain Work"[tm]

>>I'm not up to speed on how well the networks deal[1] with this
>>situation. Although I'm seriously considering deploying a £10 candy-bar
>>phone with everlasting PAYG SIM, *just* for the 2FA traffic. Apart
>>from anything else, the battery will likely last three weeks, whereas
>>my smartphone might desperately need recharging at the very moment I
>>need to buy something online (I think my record is needing five 2FA
>>codes to complete one transaction, some with the sales platform itself
>>and some with the payment mechanism).
>
>2FA is one of the main reasons why depriving someone of their phone for
>any significant length of time - whether they are complainant or
>suspect - is close to unjustifiable. Modern life is moving rapidly
>towards making a smartphone a functional requirement of everyday life.
>It isn't just social media, Candy Crush Saga and cat videos.

Yes, but think this through - 2FA is only an issue if you deprive
someone of their SIM, not their phone. If you can get a replacement SIM
in a couple of days, not so much of an issue.

>>[1] Can you just report the phone as lost (in the criminal justice
>> system) or stolen?
>
>I'd just go online and order a new SIM. The last time I did that, I
>didn't have to give a reason. I just clicked a button on screen and it
>turned up in the post the next day.

There you go... 2FA back up and running the next day.
--
Roland Perry

[Commander Kinsey]

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 09:10:45 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:

> On 20/06/2022 20:20, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 17:04:54 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <op.1n2af...@ryzen.home>, at 13:31:56 on Mon, 20 Jun
>>> 2022, Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> remarked:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 12:48:26 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 19/06/2022 05:33 am, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're accused of a crime (which is still under investigation, and
>>>>>> you're a suspect), do you have to be told what it is? So you can
>>>>>> prepare a defence for example. Or can they keep details a secret to
>>>>>> avoid people hiding evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>> What does "accused" mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> Arrested?
>>>>>
>>>>> Charged?
>>>>>
>>>>> Given a court date?
>>>>>
>>>>> Something else?
>>>>
>>>> Told you're a suspect.
>>>
>>> By whom?
>>
>> The police.
>
> Are you honestly saying that the police knocked on your front door, said
> you're a suspect in their investigation, and left, saying nothing more?

Sort of.

> Something tells me you're leaving an awful lot out of this. On another
> thread you were looking for car insurance, could there be any
> relationship between the two?

Not related.

[Commander Kinsey]

Not what happened to a neighbour.

[Fredxx]

Please expand. The police simply would not do this.

[Commander Kinsey]

It was mentioned while I was talking to one completely unrelated to the crime.

[Adam Funk]

Not all 2FA is done by sending a code in an SMS to the number. Some of
it requires an app with credentials that is difficult to set up on a
replacement phone if you haven't "turned it off" on the old one first.

There's also the question of the police --- who are not all 100%
honest --- having access to all sorts of things like your banking
apps.

[Adam Funk]

But they wouldn't take your computers/phones away and start fishing
through all your personal records and cloud data?

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1n7wa...@ryzen.home>, at 14:12:02 on Thu, 23 Jun

OK so a 'leak' by that copper, probably something worthy of disciplinary
action.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <617eoix...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 14:39:18 on Thu, 23
Jun 2022, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:

I don't think anyone claimed it was. It is however overwhelmingly the
most deployed.

>Some of it requires an app with credentials that is difficult to set up
>on a replacement phone if you haven't "turned it off" on the old one
>first.

A process which doesn't chime well with simplistic "backup/restore"
processes, as some have claimed.

>There's also the question of the police --- who are not all 100%
>honest --- having access to all sorts of things like your banking
>apps.

Although most will need a fingerprint.

>>>>[1] Can you just report the phone as lost (in the criminal justice
>>>> system) or stolen?
>>>
>>>I'd just go online and order a new SIM. The last time I did that, I
>>>didn't have to give a reason. I just clicked a button on screen and it
>>>turned up in the post the next day.
>>
>> There you go... 2FA back up and running the next day.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <sq6eoix...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 14:35:56 on Thu, 23

Jun 2022, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:

That's merely the difference between invasions of your online and
offline space. Another difference being you might be excluded from your
offline space for a few hours, but reports suggest for your online space
it could be a year or more.
--
Roland Perry

[Commander Kinsey]

I disagree. People should have the right to know the crime they are suspected of.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1n9p8...@ryzen.home>, at 13:56:29 on Fri, 24 Jun

2022, Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> remarked:
>On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:40:12 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <op.1n7wa...@ryzen.home>, at 14:12:02 on Thu, 23 Jun
>> 2022, Commander Kinsey <C...@nospam.com> remarked:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 18:39:33 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/06/2022 13:22, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 09:10:45 +0100, Fredxx <fre...@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you honestly saying that the police knocked on your front door, said
>>>>>> you're a suspect in their investigation, and left, saying nothing more?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sort of.
>>>>
>>>> Please expand. The police simply would not do this.
>>>
>>> It was mentioned while I was talking to one completely unrelated to
>>>the crime.
>>
>> OK so a 'leak' by that copper, probably something worthy of disciplinary
>> action.
>
>I disagree. People should have the right to know the crime they are
>suspected of.

They also have the right not to expect the police to gossip about cases
they know about.
--
Roland Perry

[Commander Kinsey]

That contradicts my point. It can't be both ways.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1n9t9...@ryzen.home>, at 15:23:25 on Fri, 24 Jun

But it is, because compliance officers can't control what's in the
gossip, so everything has to be done formally.

"You do not have to say anything, but what you do say will be taken
down". "Knickers".
--
Roland Perry

[Simon Parker]

On 20/06/2022 15:10, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 20/06/2022 13:34, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 17:42:45 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/06/2022 14:25, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2022 13:55:38 +0100, David McNeish <davi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 11:16:40 UTC+1, Max Demian wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/06/2022 09:07, Norman Wells wrote:

>>>>>> > On 19/06/2022 05:33, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>> >> If you're accused of a crime (which is still under
>>>>>> investigation, and
>>>>>> >> you're a suspect), do you have to be told what it is?  So you can
>>>>>> >> prepare a defence for example.  Or can they keep details a
>>>>>> secret to
>>>>>> >> avoid people hiding evidence?
>>>>>> >

>>>>>> > 'Suspect' is not a legal status.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > If you're arrested, you have to be told what you're being
>>>>>> arrested on
>>>>>> > suspicion of.
>>>>>> Is that actually true? (Just asking.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes - if we're talking about England or Wales then s.28 of PACE says:
>>>>>
>>>>> "no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the
>>>>> ground
>>>>> for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the
>>>>> arrest."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/28
>>>>>
>>>>> and similar in Scotland:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/1/section/3
>>>>>
>>>>>> Supposedly the police have to give you evidence that might exonerate
>>>>>> you. How does that work in practice, as the police are in the
>>>>>> business
>>>>>> of prosecuting you, and have access to virtually unlimited funds for
>>>>>> forensics &c.?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not the police who prosecute - but the prosecution do need to
>>>>> disclose evidence during the pre-trial process. Despite what you
>>>>> see in
>>>>> fiction, trials aren't full of surprise evidence or witnesses dashing
>>>>> in at
>>>>> the last minute. You're right about the disparty in resources though -
>>>>> the
>>>>> defence might only be able to cast doubt on the prosecution evidence
>>>>> rather than e.g. bring in their own expert witnesses etc.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that's morally right.  Let's say you're unfairly
>>>> dismissed.  You have some damning evidence against your employer.  If
>>>> you're allowed to keep it secret, so he goes ahead with firing you,
>>>> then
>>>> you take him to court and he thinks you don't have a leg to stand on,
>>>> you can then show him up as a fraudster and get him in severe trouble.
>>>
>>> Even if he is a fraudster, that has no bearing on whether your dismissal
>>> was unfair, which is all the tribunal will be concerned about.
>>
>> I meant damning evidence to do with the dismissal.  Perhaps he caused
>> the explosion he's blaming you for.

>
> Well, what you're describing is an unfair dismissal case in an
> employment tribunal.  It's not a criminal case with a prosecution and an
> accused, nor are there any disclosure rules that apply.  You would be
> the claimant, and the onus is on you to prove your case on the balance
> of probabilities in whatever way you can.

Anybody contemplating taking their employer to an employment tribunal
would be well served by reading The Employment Tribunals (Constitution
and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 [1].

In so doing, they will see that, despite any claims to the contrary,
there are rules on disclosure and adducing evidence.

Section 2, "Overriding objective" is highly relevant in that the aim is
to deal with a case "fairly and justly" which will include "ensuring the
parties are on an equal footing" and "avoiding unnecessary formality and
seeking flexibility in the proceedings".

The Rules place an obligation on "the parties and their representatives"
to "assist the Tribunal to further the overriding objective and in
particular shall co-operate generally with each other and with the
Tribunal".

So whilst an employee is unlikely to be prevented from adducing
additional evidence that comes to light during the hearing itself, if an
employee has evidence that the employer is responsible for an incident
for which he is blaming the employee and has sacked them, such as
Commander Kinsey's "explosion", then such evidence of this will need to
be disclosed well in advance of the actual Employment Tribunal hearing.

Regards

S.P.

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1237/schedule/1/made

[Simon Parker]

A wrinkle with ordering and installing a new SIM is that the security of
WhatsApp is tied to the SIM and IMEI of the mobile and changing either
results in WhatsApp stopping working on previous combinations thereof.

So, whilst the police would have the complainant's mobile and SIM, they
would no longer be able to acccess the contents within WhatsApp as it
will stop working the second it is activated on a different device.

The user could then access WhatsApp on their new device, delete any
messages they felt were incriminating. Reactivating it on the device
the police have will cause it to either start with no message hisory, or
it will pull down the latest backup WhatsApp hold (which will have been
made on the new devices after the infcriminating messages were removed).

In short, anyone activating a new SIM in a new mobile because the police
have confiscated their mobile may well find themselves in hot water with
the police.

Additionally, the new "WhatsApp for Windows" works independently of the
mobile device so, providing it was setup beforehand, it is possible to
delete messages from within WhatsApp without having access to the mobile
device. Yes, there will be a "Message Deleted" placeholder but the
message itself will be gone.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

As an example of this, I have an "Authenticator" app on my mobile which
I need to access the Government Gateway.

Numerous other accounts use the same app.

Without my mobile I simply can't login to any of these accounts which
would create an issue if the police had my mobile for anything more than
a day or two.

Regards

S.P.

[Mark Goodge]

No, and Roland's way is the correct, and important, one. The police should not
gossip about crimes they are investigating. Partly, that's because doing so may
give an offender the notice they need to cover their tracks before being
formally interviewed. And partly, it's because it risks allowing false, and
potentially defamatory, information to circulate in the community.

In any crime where the identity of the alleged offender is not a part of the
complaint itself there are likely to be several people who may be the
perpetrator. But, of course, only one of them can actually have done it. So
being a suspect, in and of itself, is a neutral position, it doesn't imply
guilt. It merely means that they are one of the people who needs to be
eliminated from the enquiry in order to narrow it down to the one who is most
likely to be the actual perpetrator.

If they are still a suspect after that process of elimination has taken place,
then that's the point at which they need to be formally interviewed in
connection with the offence. But not until then.

Mark

[Commander Kinsey]

I don't call it gossip when they're telling the suspect they suspect them. Now telling their neighbour would be different.

[Commander Kinsey]

How about.... the employee did X and is getting fired for it. The employer did Y a while ago and got away with it and the employee has damning evidence that would get him fired instead, or even into criminal trouble.

[Commander Kinsey]

And as one of those innocent suspects, it's rather unnerving not to be told whether you're suspected of a petty theft or a murder. The innocent should not be treated that way.

[Roger Hayter]

Unless Y caused X in some way then the evidence about the employer would not
help the employee's case at all, and probably wouldn't even be admissable
evidence in his unfair dismissal case. The time to use this information
(probably illegally) would be *before* being sacked.


--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <jholn5...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:51:17 on Sat, 25
Jun 2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>> I'm not up to speed on how well the networks deal[1] with this
>>>>> situation. Although I'm seriously considering deploying a £10 candy-bar
>>>>> phone with everlasting PAYG SIM, *just* for the 2FA traffic. Apart
>>>> >from anything else, the battery will likely last three weeks, whereas
>>>>> my smartphone might desperately need recharging at the very moment I
>>>>> need to buy something online (I think my record is needing five 2FA
>>>>> codes to complete one transaction, some with the sales platform itself
>>>>> and some with the payment mechanism).
>>>>
>>>> 2FA is one of the main reasons why depriving someone of their phone for
>>>> any significant length of time - whether they are complainant or
>>>> suspect - is close to unjustifiable. Modern life is moving rapidly
>>>> towards making a smartphone a functional requirement of everyday life.
>>>> It isn't just social media, Candy Crush Saga and cat videos.
>>>
>>> Yes, but think this through - 2FA is only an issue if you deprive
>>> someone of their SIM, not their phone. If you can get a replacement SIM
>>> in a couple of days, not so much of an issue.

>> Not all 2FA is done by sending a code in an SMS to the number. Some
>>of it requires an app with credentials that is difficult to set up on
>>a replacement phone if you haven't "turned it off" on the old one first.
>
>As an example of this, I have an "Authenticator" app on my mobile which
>I need to access the Government Gateway.
>
>Numerous other accounts use the same app.

And while they've largely been discarded because of SMS 2FA, lots of
banking had separate authentication gadgets.

One of my recent clients had (probably still has a few users) a very
similar gadget delivered as an app on a phone. First you hade to
authenticate yourself to the phone, then launch the app which gave a
six-digit number that changed once a minute.

>Without my mobile I simply can't login to any of these accounts which
>would create an issue if the police had my mobile for anything more
>than a day or two.

Hence my idea above for ditching the phone as the platform for all this
stuff (it's far too much of a single-point-of-failure for many users)
and a second phone-shaped-object just for authentications.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <jholbt...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:45:17 on Sat, 25

Jun 2022, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com> remarked:

I don't know why WhatsApp needs to be singled out like that - the same
use-from-another-platform issue is true of Facebook, Twitter, email and
so on.

Assuming of course they don't ask for phone-based 2FA to log in!!

I'm fuming a bit at the moment because eBay has started asking for 2FA
just to read messages from suppliers (I'm currently trying to arrange
pick-up of an item that isn't in fact a couple of miles away as the
listing implied, but half an hour's drive).
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1oboj...@ryzen.home>, at 15:15:13 on Sat, 25 Jun

Compliance procedures don't give officers the discretion to make that
sort of decision themselves.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1ob1c...@ryzen.home>, at 19:51:57 on Sat, 25 Jun

What if the innocent suspects are "all middle aged men driving a red
Ford Escort". Do you expect them to do a mass-mailing?
--
Roland Perry

[Commander Kinsey]

The only law I can see being broken is withholding information form the law about the criminal case Y. Which you're already doing anyway.

[Commander Kinsey]

It's hardly a difficult decision distinguishing between a person and someone else.

[Commander Kinsey]

I'm referring to being half told.

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1oc57...@ryzen.home>, at 10:34:33 on Sun, 26 Jun

The difficult decision is whether to break the rules and tell either of
them anything, and if so - how much detail. Especially when it turns out
*you* were misinformed and you are spreading lies.
--
Roland Perry

[Simon Parker]

On 25/06/2022 15:46, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> How about.... the employee did X and is getting fired for it.  The
> employer did Y a while ago and got away with it and the employee has
> damning evidence that would get him fired instead, or even into criminal
> trouble.

I generally refuse to follow posters down ever more complex rabbit holes
when they cross my "threshold of nonsense" and and I am not inclined to
waiver from that policy in this instance either.

I am happy to participate in a discussion about a hypothetical case
before an Employment Tribunal.

But when the thread progresses to a point where blackmail is being
proposed as a means of unwinding a dismissal then I'm bowing out.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

I still have a standalone authentication device for the bank, but it
doesn't work in that manner. (Although I used a have a USB pen-drive
sized token with an LCD display that worked in precisely that manner.)

I have two ways of authenticating myself to the bank:

(1) I can use the banking app on my mobile; or

(2) I have a small calculator sized device into which I place my bank
card, enter my PIN and then it it uses various methods to authenticate
the transaction, depending on what I'm doing.

The one thing I'm not worried about if I were to lose my mobile,
especially for a prolonged period, would be banking. (And it doesn't
just need to be on-line banking. In-person transactions are sometimes
challenged if the fraud algorithms are triggered.)

>> Without my mobile I simply can't login to any of these accounts which
>> would create an issue if the police had my mobile for anything more
>> than a day or two.
>
> Hence my idea above for ditching the phone as the platform for all this
> stuff (it's far too much of a single-point-of-failure for many users)
> and a second phone-shaped-object just for authentications.

It is possible that the police will seize the phone-shaped-object at the
same time as seizing the mobile.

My confidence in the police, (which was already significantly lower than
I'm comfortable with it being), took a further knock recently due to an
incident involving a friend.

In short, he was involved in a Road Traffic Incident with another
vehicle and the police attended the scene. Owing to his age and the
circumstances of the RTI, the police decided to take him back to the
police station to conduct a formal eye test.

At the start of the test, he took his driving spectacles from his
pocket, (Which he was wearing at the time of the RTI), and put them on.

He was instructed that the test must be performed without any corrective
eye wear. He replied that they are prescription glasses specifically
for driving and he cannot and does not drive without them.

His protestations came to nought and, after several threats from the
police, he completed the test without his glasses and, unsurprisingly,
failed.

He was arrested and interviewed under caution. Whilst being
interviewed, the police informed DVLA he had failed the eye test at the
police station and DVLA suspended his licence. This information was
automatically communicated to his insurance company who in turn
suspended his cover.

He emerged from the interview under caution to a message on his mobile
from his insurers advising him of this.

It took a couple of weeks to unravel it, and the process is on-going but
the latest is that the police have finally accepted that there were
"procedural irregularities" with the eye test administered at the police
station and they will need to re-admininster it so he needs to make an
appointment so they can do it again.

This could have been nipped in the bud if the officer adminstering the
test had taken a moment to double-check about whether the test should be
administered with or without glasses, particularly as there is no
dispute that he was wearing them at the time of the RTI.

Regards

S.P.

[Roger Hayter]

On 26 Jun 2022 at 13:06:19 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I don't think he was proposing blackmail (which would at least be logical,
though criminal). I think he was proposing using evidence of his employer's
crime as supporting evidence for his unfair dismissal claim. Which of course
would be unlikely to help but is not illegal although probably inadmissable.



--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <op.1oc8v...@ryzen.home>, at 11:31:49 on Sun, 26 Jun

And I'm referring to all suspects being warned.
--
Roland Perry

[Commander Kinsey]

Who does "you" refer to?

[Simon Parker]

Email, (using IMAP rather than POP), can be used on several devices
simultaneously. The police having a phone with an e-mail client
installed and configured doesn't stop those messages being viewed on
other devices elsewhere.

Facebook similarly permits one to be logged in on multiple devices
simultaneously. If one acquired a new mobile, one could login to
Facebook and authenticate via means other than SMS and have Facebook
running both on the new mobile and on the one the police have.

Ditto for Twitter, which permits the same account to be accessed from
multiple devices.

I singled out WhatsApp for two reasons:

(1) the police are highly likely to want access to messages on WhatsApp
for the duration of their investigation;

(2) whilst the police have the complainant's mobile, WhatsApp cannot be
enabled on an alternative mobile device without also disabling it on the
device the police have.

(Although my previous caveat about continuing to use the recently
launched WhatsApp for Windows providing it was installed and setup prior
to the police taking control of the mobile still stands true.)

> Assuming of course they don't ask for phone-based 2FA to log in!!

There's usually an alternative 2FA method for when SMS isn't available.

> I'm fuming a bit at the moment because eBay has started asking for 2FA
> just to read messages from suppliers (I'm currently trying to arrange
> pick-up of an item that isn't in fact a couple of miles away as the
> listing implied, but half an hour's drive).

In context, I don't think the police will need to see eBay messages
between a rape complainant and the person accused of rape.

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

"I admit I am guilty of [x] but other people do [y] and get away with
it, and [y] is much worse than [x]" is rarely a good defence to a charge
of [x] and certainly isn't one I'd contemplate running with.

YMMV (for various values of "your").

For the avoidance of doubt, an employment tribunal is unlikely to want
to consider matters not directly related to the dismissal, particularly
if it looks like little more than mud-slinging in the employer's
direction. A claimant attempting to introduce such claims during the
hearing is unlikely to find a listening ear, especially if they are a
central part of their defence but were not previously mentioned. (ET's
try to be flexible, but they are also reasonable and don't have
unlimited time to consider everything.)

Regards

S.P.

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 13:30:38 +0100, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:

> On 26 Jun 2022 at 13:06:19 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 25/06/2022 15:46, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>
>>> How about.... the employee did X and is getting fired for it. The
>>> employer did Y a while ago and got away with it and the employee has
>>> damning evidence that would get him fired instead, or even into criminal
>>> trouble.
>>
>> I generally refuse to follow posters down ever more complex rabbit holes
>> when they cross my "threshold of nonsense" and and I am not inclined to
>> waiver from that policy in this instance either.
>>
>> I am happy to participate in a discussion about a hypothetical case
>> before an Employment Tribunal.
>>
>> But when the thread progresses to a point where blackmail is being
>> proposed as a means of unwinding a dismissal then I'm bowing out.
>

> I don't think he was proposing blackmail (which would at least be logical,
> though criminal).

The only possible criminal act I'd be carrying out would be not informing the police of his crime. Is that even illegal? If I see you rob a bank I might just not want to be involved.

[Commander Kinsey]

Are you seriously suggesting you wouldn't use that information to keep your job? I think you'll find most people would. It's hardly a bad thing to threaten to grass someone off.

[Commander Kinsey]

I never suggested every suspect should be told. But telling someone they're suspected of a crime and not saying what it is will cause undue panic. They don't know how serious the crime is. Are they suspected of murder or stealing a chocolate bar?

[Commander Kinsey]

If all the people involved in deciding whether to fire you were party to Y, then they would presumably not fire you, to save themselves getting into much bigger trouble for Y.

If only some were, I guess you might still get fired, but you'd have the satisfaction of your boss getting into trouble too. Or they might not fire you because you helped them weed out a far worse employee.