UK Must Change Wiretap Prohibitions

Every once in a while, the world can still amaze. The Times leader yesterday called for a change in English law that would allow evidence from wiretaps to be admitted in court. The paper wrote “material obtained by bugging a room is often allowed, but that secured from a mobile or satellite telephone usually is not.” The word "surprising" only begins to cover it. Yet, Mr. Blair has time to worry about laws regarding anti-social behavior like playing one’s music loudly.

The Times went on to note, “A call that is placed on an internal telephone system (from one office extension to another, for example) may be acceptable but one from a telephone box across the street to that number would not be. Recordings obtained by British agents could be employed in a foreign court, but not at the Old Bailey.” And thus, wiretap evidence will be used in a British court as part of a US application to extradite terror-monger and shame to Islam, Abu Hamza. However, the evil mullah’s conviction in a British court earlier this week had to proceed without such evidence.

England’s legal system (separate from the Scottish system) remains delightfully quaint in many regards. Judges and barristers wear wigs. The police, most of them anyway, don’t carry firearms. Most criminals there, in deference to custom and to avoid much heftier prison sentences, avoid “shooters” as well. However, not using wiretap information to convict is not just pre-9/11 thinking, it is more like pre-Phoenix Park 1882, when Irish terrorists killed Lord Cavendish.

The political consensus, says the Times, has moved to a more sensible view -- wiretaps executed by the police under some sort of judicial supervision should be admissible in court. Yet the security services MI5 and MI6 oppose it because revealing the techniques used will benefit the baddies. Perhaps, they are correct. Yet the Times appears to have the right view, “the consequence is that men such as Abu Hamza remain at large until they make a mistake that allows them to be arrested. This is a reckless approach to the prevention of terrorism.”

Moreover, it is a reckless approach to the prosecution of crime. Balancing the rights of the accused with the interest of society in making sure crime is prevented or punished is tricky – no doubt about it. Yet, that is precisely what elected governments are elected to do, work on getting the balance right. If Mr. Blair won’t get off the mark and act, this is a perfect issue for the new leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron, to make his own. It would almost justify voting Tory all on its own.

The Danish flag appears here as a protest against the violence being done to the free press of that country and elsewhere by those offended by some cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, peace be unto him. A perceived insult is not an excuse for intimidation and violence, even in the name of the Creator. One cannot insult God, only small-minded men who falsely claim to speak for Him. © Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home