Police chief Colin Port forced to back down in hard drive stand-off
Webmanager_CritEst
Police chief Colin Port forced to back down in hard drive stand-off
Colin Port, the Chief Constable of the Avon and Somerset Police,
outside the High Court in central London
Sean O’Neill, Crime Editor
A police chief has been forced to return 87 computer hard drives
seized in a child abuse raid to a controversial expert witness.
Colin Port, Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset, had been facing
contempt of court charges for delaying the return of evidence from
child abuse cases to Jim Bates, a computer analyst whose home was
searched by police last year.
The police search of Mr Bates’s home was declared illegal by the High
Court in May because Mr Port’s officers had drawn up a warrant
incorrectly and taken away legally privileged material.
Mr Port took legal advice about how he could avoid returning the
material, while police sources told The Times last month that he
viewed returning the material as “tantamount to a neglect of duty”.
But on Monday night, just hours before the chief constable was due in
court to answer the contempt allegation, the computer material was
delivered to the offices of Mr Bates’s solicitor.
Today Mr Port called for national guidelines on who should have legal
access to child abuse images.
He warned that the absence of firm rules on who could view material
and how long it could be retained, might lead to the repeat
victimisation of child abuse sufferers.
Hundreds of hard copy images, some of which are also understood to
contain abuse imagery, may also have to be returned to Mr Bates unless
he and the police can reach an agreement for their destruction.
Mr Bates’s lawyers, who are to seek compensation for the illegal
search of his home, said the hard copy images were contained in legal
case files which were stored in his garage. They said some of the
material had originally been given to him by police and prosecution
authorities and dated back 10 years.
Lord Justice Stanley Burnton said Mr Bates had held all the material
“in a professional capacity” and that that Mr Port’s delayed
compliance with a court order was “regrettable”. The judge added: “The
conduct of the chief constable since the order was made has been of
concern to us”.
Mr Bates, 68, is regarded as a pioneer of forensic computer
examination and was widely used as a prosecution and defence expert
witness for many years. But the Crown Prosecution Service stopped
using him and in 2006 issued confidential guidance concerning him to
prosecutors.
In March 2008, Mr Bates was convicted of four charges of making a
false statement and one of perjury relating to claims he had made over
many years about his qualifications.
Avon & Somerset police began a fresh investigation into him last
September after he obtained a copy of the hard drive of a man charged
with possessing child abuse images on computer. Mr Bates was given the
material at a Bristol police station when he arrived in the capacity
of assistant to another expert witness.
Police later raided his Leicestershire home and he was arrested on
suspicion of conspiring to possess indecent images of children. That
investigation has now been dropped.
Mr Bates has long contended that the actions against him are an
attempt to discredit him because he now acts as a defence expert and
is an outspoken critic of police investigations. He is particularly
critical of the conduct of Operation Ore, a nationwide inquiry into
online child abuse which led to thousands of arrests, convictions and
cautions.
He claimed in court papers that he had been subjected to
“intimidation, bullying and even threats of violence by the police and
some of their misguided supporters”.
Mr Port said outside court that he was pleased to have been cleared of
contempt but added: “There is a need for a comprehensive national
review into the circumstances in which people access this sensitive
material and retain it.
“Each time these images are viewed it is a fresh victimisation of the
child.
“Tougher governance is crucial. We need a nationwide accreditation
system with clear rules that safeguard victims and a failsafe that
allows accreditation to be withdrawn should any aspect of the rules be
breached.”
The chief constable called on Mr Bates to destroy the computer hard
drives that had been returned to him.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6512468.ece
******
What happened ...
"But on Monday night, just hours before the chief constable was due in
court to answer the contempt allegation, the computer material was
delivered to the offices of Mr Bates’s solicitor."
What officer Port thinks happened ...
"Mr Port said outside court that he was pleased to have been cleared
of contempt"
Speaks for itself.
totallyconfused
But he wasn't cleared- he just backed down to 'save face'. I hope Jim
sues them to death. And as always, my personal message to Jim
Gamble...tick tock tick tock.
Webmanager_CritEst
Chief constable cleared of contempt after he returns hard drives
containing evidence of suspected child abuse
* Sandra Laville, crime correspondent
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 June 2009 17.52 BST
Colin Port Colin Port outside the high court.
A chief constable was criticised by three judges today for defying a
high court order to return computer hard drives containing evidence of
suspected child abuse to an expert witness.
Colin Port, the chief constable of Avon and Somerset police, escaped a
prison term for contempt of court because he returned the files from
87 computer hard drives to the expert yesterday evening, hours before
the officer appeared at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
Although they dismissed the contempt of court action against him the
three senior judges said Port's actions in defying the order "gave
grounds for concern".
The case pitted the chief constable against Jim Bates, a forensic
computer analyst, who since the 1990s has been used by police and
defence lawyers in paedophile cases.
Bates said the contents of the computer hard drives and hundreds of
photographs which were seized were all related to his work as an
expert witness.
He claims that Port and other senior police officers involved in child
protection are engaged in a campaign to discredit him because he
continues to expose serious flaws in Operation Ore, Britain's biggest
online paedophile investigation.
Last year Bates was found guilty of falsifying his qualifications by
saying he held a bachelor of science degree when he did not.
"I have been subjected to intimidation, bullying and even threats of
violence by police and some of their misguided supporters," Bates said
in court documents.
But as he escaped prisontoday Port was defiant. Outside the court he
called upon Bates to destroy all the material which had been returned
and said the case raised concerns about who was allowed access to
highly sensitive material.
"Each time these images are viewed it is a fresh victimisation of the
child," he said. "Tighter governance is crucial. We need a nationwide
accreditation system with clear rules and safeguarding of victims and
a fail-safe that allows accreditation to be withdrawn should any
aspect of those rules be breached."
Bates, who has been credited as a world-renowned expert in forensic
computer analysis, became the focus of a police inquiry last year when
he acted in the case of a Bristol man accused of possessing paedophile
images.
He was arrested last September on suspicion of conspiracy to possess
indecent images of children. His home was searched and 87 computer
hard drives and several hundred photographs of children were seized.
The police claimed Bates had 2,500 photographs of children in his
possession. He disputes that, saying there were only about 250
pictures, all relating to historic cases which the police had
knowledge of.
Bates challenged the search and seizure at a judicial review and said
the material was legally restricted, professionally confidential and
required for his work as a defence expert.
In May the high court ruled in his favour saying the search was
unlawful and ordered Port to return the material.
But Port refused, saying that the public would not understand a police
officer handing back images of suspected child abuse during an
investigation.
Bates, who is acting in two forthcoming appeals against conviction in
the Ore investigation, has suggested that 85% of the convictions are
unsafe because of "massive evidence of credit card fraud".
Operation Ore was launched in 2002 after the credit card details of
7,200 people believed to have paid for paedophile images on the
internet were supplied to the British police by US investigators.
More than 2,000 individuals have been convicted as part of the
inquiry. Police suspected those on the list of having paid for access
to images of children being abused through a website called Landslide,
which provided access to 300 adult sites.
But Bates and others say the inquiry was seriously flawed, and said
many people on the list were victims of credit card fraud. In the
United States only a small proportion of those on the list were
convicted.
In his affidavit Bates said: "My investigation revealed … massive
evidence of credit card fraud within the database (Landslide) and
conclusive evidence of breathtaking incompetence in the prosecution's
expert analyses of how this database had been generated and
maintained."
Senior officers involved in Ore are also facing a class action from
former suspects who claim their lives have been ruined as a result of
a flawed investigation.
In their judgment Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, Mr Justice Wilkie and
Mr Justice Calvert Smith criticised Port for attempting to smear Bates
in a series of newspaper articles "all of which were directed to bring
Bates into disrepute as a result of suggestions that there was
salacious material which he had on computers otherwise than for purely
professional purposes".
They refused to grant Port's legal team costs. Bates said he would be
pursuing a case for damages against the force and Port.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/16/police-chief-colin-port-cleared
******
"In their judgment Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, Mr Justice Wilkie and
Mr Justice Calvert Smith criticised Port for attempting to smear Bates
in a series of newspaper articles "all of which were directed to bring
Bates into disrepute as a result of suggestions that there was
salacious material which he had on computers otherwise than for purely
professional purposes"."
WM
Webmanager_CritEst
http://forum.obu-investigators.com/viewtopic.php?t=1616&start=105&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
WM
Svenne
<webma...@critest.com> wrote:
>"Each time these images are viewed it is a fresh victimisation of the
>child,"
That is a very interesting metaphysical proposition.
It has great similarities with that other great metphysical problem:
does a fairy die every time someone says "I don't believe in fairies."
Svenne
Webmanager_CritEst
> Jim Bates wins Judicial review!http://forum.obu-investigators.com/viewtopic.php?t=1616&start=105&pos...
>
> WM
Bates V Colin Port (Victory for Bates)
http://forum.obu-investigators.com/viewtopic.php?p=10206#10206
WM
Cynic
>>"Each time these images are viewed it is a fresh victimisation of the
>>child,"
>
>That is a very interesting metaphysical proposition.
>
>It has great similarities with that other great metphysical problem:
>does a fairy die every time someone says "I don't believe in fairies."
Yes, it does. Yet it has been the very serious contention of people
in the child-abuse industry for about a decade. And it is swallowed
completely by ministers and judges who really ought to be able to
think for themselves rather than succumbing to knee-jerk rhetoric.
Along with many other accepted "facts" that have absolutely no
evidence to support them.
--
Cynic
Webmanager_CritEst
WM
MM
The link in question is, however, showing the wrong clip.
MM
Webmanager_CritEst
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:15:44 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
>
> >C4 Latest News stream is now up ...
>
> >http://www.channel4.com/news/
>
> The link in question is, however, showing the wrong clip.
>
> MM
Top Right
... Part 4: Lawless ... Contempt case ... (more than one story)
WM
AndyW
news:979ec76c-1527-4745...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
�Each time these images are viewed it is a fresh victimisation of the
child.
So does that mean that every time one of the prosecution team looks at an
image a ikkle child cries? Or does a prosecution team member have a special,
magical power of anti-victimisation
Andy
...
defamed, slandered and pursued by a bunch of gutless wankers in the
police force (and CEOP). I hope he can now stick them for a hefty sum
in damages. Gamble and Co's day of reckoning will come. Brave people
are refusing to be cowed by these state-sponsored bullies and in the
end the truth will out. Yes, it's taking a long, long time, but I
applaud all those, like Jim Bates, who have been decent and determined
in the face of state intimidation and media indifference (and
misinformation). 31 suicides (as a result of police action during Ore)
demand some redress. These were people's sons, fathers, husbands,
brothers...they will not go quietly into the night as long as there
are people brave enough to speak up for them.
I'd also like to mention how disgusted and disappointed I have been at
Private Eye for their complete failure to grasp the true nature of
this story. They have a history of following the 'official line'
regarding Mr Bates and have actively participated in humiliating and
belittling him, never once mentioning the shortcomings of Ore, or the
suspected miscarriages of justice therein, Mr Bates has been so
forthright in highlighting. Shame on them. For a rag that likes to
think of itself as championing 'true' journalism, in this instance
they have fallen very short of the mark, indeed.
Big Les Wade
>I'd also like to mention how disgusted and disappointed I have been at
>Private Eye for their complete failure to grasp the true nature of this
>story. They have a history of following the 'official line' regarding
>Mr Bates and have actively participated in humiliating and belittling
>him, never once mentioning the shortcomings of Ore, or the suspected
>miscarriages of justice therein, Mr Bates has been so forthright in
>highlighting. Shame on them. For a rag that likes to think of itself as
>championing 'true' journalism, in this instance they have fallen very
>short of the mark, indeed.
Absolutely agreed. I did write to them at one point early on in the saga
(when they were obviously being fed by police stooges) to tell them
they'd got the wrong target. But once they had started down the "Demon
Bates" track they found it hard to retreat. In that respect they are
very much like other journalists.
--
Les
Conspiracy theory: A suspicion that officials sometimes mislead the public in
order to protect their own interests.
Webmanager_CritEst
courthouse steps speech.
On June 15 2009, one day before his High Court contempt hearing, Chief
Constable Colin Port returned the material unlawfully seized from Jim
Bates despite his public threats not to do so.
However, after the climb down, on the steps of the courthouse, he once
again appealed to the gallery and some media as expected reported him.
Jim Bates now replies to that courthouse steps speech.
June 17 2009 statement from Jim Bates
Once again it becomes necessary to correct some of the more lurid
stories being published about my recent action against The Chief
Constable of Avon and Somerset, Colin Port.
The search
First let’s tell the true story about the unlawful search.
Shortly after 7:00 am on 11th September 2008 came a heavy knock at my
door. My wife answered it and then called me through from my office.
At the door were at least eight police officers and parked in my drive
was a large police ARV (Armed Response Vehicle).
I was told by Plod 1 (DC Mark Smith) that I was being arrested for
conspiring with Chris Magee (a long-time friend and colleague) to
possess indecent images of children and he had a warrant to search my
premises for evidence of this. My immediate response was “This is
unbelievable.” And I added, “Do you realise that the vast majority of
material here is legally privileged?” He replied, “I can seize what I
like.” This was the first lie. In very short order I was whisked off
to Rugby police station for interview. This left my wife alone, still
in her nightclothes, with seven male police officers. I next saw and
spoke to my wife at about 2:30am the next day.
I was told during interview that a substantial quantity of printed
indecent images of children had been found “around the house”. This
was the second lie and was used to justify an extension of the powers
of search. I knew that this could not be and immediately suspected
that documents may have been planted.
It was for this reason that I agreed that the printed images should be
separated and sealed pending independent forensic investigation.
It was not until 23rd May (well after the judicial review ruled that
the search was unlawful) that we found that all of these images had
been found in legal files either within archive boxes stored in my
attached garage, or in my office. So the ‘around the house’ comment
was shown to have been a lie. We were not given an opportunity to
actually examine the images until 12th June, just 2 working days
before the contempt hearing.
The images
When we eventually did examine them we found that the vast majority
were contained within reports, appendices and exhibits in specific
legal cases. Out of 22 legal files examined, alleged indecent images
were found in 7 – the remainder had none. There are probably in excess
of 200 files legal files in my archives, it was now obvious that the
search was intended to find such images and to do so the officers had
trawled through an unknown number of files to find them. The reports
containing images were contained within files dating from 2002 and had
been retained intact to enable me to rebut any accusations concerning
my technical capabilities (as was threatened in the Harris case). The
vast majority were in thumbnails – produced either by me or the
opposing expert as exhibits, appendices or integral to reports.
While we were at Bristol, my solicitor received a faxed message to
pass on to me. This was a letter from the case officer informing me
that “a decision had been made today that Avon and Somerset
Constabulary will take no further action into the alleged conspiracy
to possess indecent images of children. This investigation has ceased
and you are therefore released forthwith from police bail.”
It went on “The investigation into your possession of the remaining
items seized from your home address on 11th September 2008 is still
continuing. There are no conditions placed upon you with regards to
this investigation.” Quite how the police were intending to conduct an
investigation into material which they held illegally remains an open
question.
The documents are returned.
We finished our day by insisting that we take the document files when
we left. This provoked a flurry of phone calls which eventually agreed
to allow us to take the documents without the images (as originally
arranged in the Judicial Review Order). Reluctantly we agreed that
pages containing the images should be torn out and stored in a
separately sealed bag.
We also discovered that many of the assurances that the material would
not be (or had not been) examined were simply not reliable. We were
able to prove that the document files (including those containing no
images) had been “exhaustively examined” on 17th/18th September – well
before Mr Port’s emotive and untrue pronouncements.
My solicitor and I worked on analysing what we had found and he
produced a third affidavit for the court.
Late on Monday I heard that all (allegedly) of the seized material had
been returned to his offices. I have little doubt that this climbdown
was initiated to get Mr Port off the hook. The police have also agreed
to return the separated images. So Mr Port avoided a conviction for
contempt by the skin of his teeth and some extremely adroit footwork
by his legal team.
However, he does not get off scot-free. The High Court refused to
grant him a costs order – and criticised Port for attempting to smear
me in a series of newspaper articles "all of which were directed to
bring Bates into disrepute as a result of suggestions that there was
salacious material which he had on computers.” It is to be hoped that
the Avon and Somerset Police Authority will be equally critical of a
Chief Constable who brings his force into disrepute and spends tens of
thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money on defending legal actions
that he was responsible for in the first place.
I will be pursuing an action for damages and a public apology. Then I
shall be looking at taking action concerning certain other media
reports which attempted to perpetuate Port’s disgusting attempt to
smear me.
In the meantime I see yesterday’s events as a victory, at last, for
common sense and the rule of law. I’ve let the provable involvement of
Jim Gamble and CEOP pass without comment – for the moment.
And finally, I must express my grateful thanks to my legal team. You
will appreciate that during my career I have come across many
solicitors and barristers. Some have been very good, other have been
less so – but without doubt Messrs Mark Spragg, Alun Jones QC and
Rupert Bowers are the best I’ve ever seen. This successful conclusion
would not have been possible without their dedication and
determination. Should you be interested, they can be contacted at
Jeffrey Green Russell, on 0207 339 7000.
Jim Bates
http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=44
***
WM
www.critest.com
totallyconfused
wrote:
>
> ***
> WMwww.critest.com
I’ve let the provable involvement of
> Jim Gamble and CEOP pass without comment – for the moment.
As above....To Gamble, and Co.....tick tock tick tock. I just hope
that when your day of reckoning comes, your maker slamdunks your asses
into pergatory and makes you spend all eternity having to confront
every single soul you intentionally and maliciously set out to destroy
and harm- directly or indirectly.
And as for Mr. T.J. Bates...,..give 'em hell Jim and don't stop until
they are as broken as they have tried to make all of us.
TC
ted
<webma...@critest.com> wrote:
>June 16, 2009
>
>Police chief Colin Port forced to back down in hard drive stand-off
>
No doubt The Scum will report this as a victory for Port and continue
to smear Bates.
The whole saga has been another eye-opener into how the police in this
country operate.
Mike
--
Mike
Svenne
They view the images in lead lined rooms that contain the abuse rays
so that they will not escape and violate children.
Svenne
Webmanager_CritEst
Just like MPs, they usually keep within the law, but ....
WM
Webmanager_CritEst
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:20:59 +0100, "AndyW"
>
> >"Webmanager_CritEst" <webmana...@critest.com> wrote in message
> >news:979ec76c-1527-4745...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >“Each time these images are viewed it is a fresh victimisation of the
> >child.
>
> >So does that mean that every time one of the prosecution team looks at an
> >image a ikkle child cries? Or does a prosecution team member have a special,
> >magical power of anti-victimisation
>
> They view the images in lead lined rooms that contain the abuse rays
> so that they will not escape and violate children.
>
> Svenne
In any case, they are not endowed with The Paedostare of Doom.
WM
Mike
> On Jun 17, 3:49 pm, Mike <spamd...@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> ted wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:48:41 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
>>> <webmana...@critest.com> wrote:
>>>> June 16, 2009
>>>> Police chief Colin Port forced to back down in hard drive stand-off
>>> No doubt The Scum will report this as a victory for Port and continue
>>> to smear Bates.
>>> The whole saga has been another eye-opener into how the police in this
>>> country operate.
>> It's abundantly clear that the police have no respect for the law whatsoever.
>
>
There will, of course, be times when whatever the police happen to be doing will
be legal. That doesn't mean they have respect for the law, they would still be
doing whatever they wanted to do: be it legal or otherwise. Not everything even
the most hardened criminal does is illegal.
--
Mike
Webmanager_CritEst
Perhaps you would like to expand on what you mean by 'respect for the
law'.
I do not 'respect' the law, for many reasons, but I try to follow it,
as much as I am able.
WM
MM
He or she has to take an anti-victimisation pill two hours before
viewing. Viewing must be terminated within the following two hours.
Overdosing is not recommended, as there is no antidote.
MM
Mike
> On Jun 17, 4:18 pm, Mike <spamd...@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
>>> On Jun 17, 3:49 pm, Mike <spamd...@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>> ted wrote:
>>>> It's abundantly clear that the police have no respect for the law whatsoever.
>>> Just like MPs, they usually keep within the law, but ....
>> Occasionally keeping within the law is not the same as having respect for it.
>> There will, of course, be times when whatever the police happen to be doing will
>> be legal. That doesn't mean they have respect for the law, they would still be
>> doing whatever they wanted to do: be it legal or otherwise. Not everything even
>> the most hardened criminal does is illegal.
>
> Perhaps you would like to expand on what you mean by 'respect for the
> law'.
>
Obeying it, even when inconvenient to do so. Wilfully defying the law, OTOH,
shows contempt for it. Wilfully defying a court order, made in accordance with
the law, demonstrates utter contempt for the law, the courts and society as a whole.
> I do not 'respect' the law, for many reasons, but I try to follow it,
> as much as I am able.
>
That's fair enough because, unlike police officers, don't hold yourself out as a
representative of the law.
--
Mike
totallyconfused
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1892890#1892890