9 ms·

IMHO the concept of "parallel construction" is mostly an USA specific thing because USA legal doctrine is heavy on fourth amendment application and "fruit of th

IMHO the concept of "parallel construction" is mostly an USA specific thing because USA legal doctrine is heavy on fourth amendment application and "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine that can make evidence inadmissible depending on how it was obtained. But all those things and rights are specific to USA, not in general, and not even for other common law countries. As far as I understand, such "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is not applied in UK, as long as the evidence is believed to be true, it would generally be admissible in court even if it was obtained through e.g. mass warrantless wiretapping, so if they knew who he was already, they could and would have just gone ahead and there would be no need to put in the effort for some parallel construction.

adolph 5y ago
Parallel construction is also used to protect sources and methods.
- adolph 5y ago
  The perverting the course of justice charge alleges the trio disclosed information that law enforcement could access encrypted EncroChat data. https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/operation-venetic-police-worker-among-three-charged https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/operation-veneti...
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  In the UK, defense lawyers aren't allowed to reveal details if it harms future police operations. So again you don't need parallel construction.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Does this result in a lot of sealed/private hearings where methods of gathering evidence are discussed? I'd imagine the majority of criminal prosecutions would involve at least some "trade secrets" (for lack of a better term) on the part of the police.
    - pjc50 5y ago
      There have been various rather nasty trials in which vital defense info was ruled both secret and inadmissible; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-interest_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-interest_immunity covers the most famous examples, particularly Matrix-Churchill which I'm just about old enough to remember. I believe ECHR 1998 has improved the situation a bit, although the existence of a court outwith the UK to which people can appeal their human rights violations is controversial and unpopular with the right.
      - bobthepanda 5y ago
        Railing against the ECHR is arguably one of the things that sparked Brexit.
        nojokes 5y ago
        Can you elaborate this a little?
        bobthepanda 5y ago
        A key point of Brexit is to "restore sovereignty." At least some of that ire is directed at the ECHR, which can issue rulings that override British rulings and parliament. One of the examples of this occurring is when the ECHR overturned a British ban on voting for prisoners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2) Like many things independence from the ECHR has not actually happened yet. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7e0577d5-e617-471a-8e00-5c964741965c https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7e0577d5-e617...
        LatteLazy 5y ago
        (it's worth nothing that ruling was in 2005 and prisoners still can't vote so it's not as much of an override as people might imagine)
        5y ago
  - adolph 5y ago
    That sounds airtight—the defense lawyers surely wouldn’t say a word because it isn’t allowed.
    - toyg 5y ago
      It's sadly more common than one would think. There are some very undemocratic bits in the bowels of the UK justice system, and nobody that matters has any intention of fixing them. In fact, they are busy trying to import all the worst elements of the US system, removing legal aid so that poor people won't be able to bother the rich and powerful anymore.
- nullc 5y ago
  > Parallel construction is also used to protect sources and methods. And, of course, it is the unethical and unlawful methods which have the greatest need of "protection".
  - User23 5y ago
    Snitches get stitches, or a dirt nap. Protecting a confidential informant sounds facially reasonable, but obviously abuses are possible.
    - nullc 5y ago
      In the US people have a right to face their accusers, to cross examine witnesses, to shake out lacking credibility or perverted motivations. If parallel construction is being used to conceal people who testified against you there might be a motivation for it that is more complicated than an outright end-run around your civil rights, but it's not clear that it's any more justified. Moreover, even if there is something that ought reasonably be protected misleading the court about it isn't the right way to do it: Say there is a confidential source. Let the court decide if the results can be admitted and under what terms. Allowing prosecutors to lie isn't the right answer, the state is already at a tremendous advantage without it being dishonest.
    - adolph 5y ago
      The central officer in this case made up drug crimes and confidential informants for years and his squad killed at least two people in an overtime padding scheme that was only found out because they recklessly shot each other on a raid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecan_Park_raid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecan_Park_raid
pc86 5y ago
I agree with you on the legal doctrine piece, but most in the US (myself included) would say that the US Constitution doesn't grant anybody any rights. It codified inalienable rights that exist for all people merely by virtue of their existence. Every person has the right to speak their mind, to defend themselves, to not incriminate themselves, etc. etc. with all the caveats and potential nullifications that accompany those rights. The fact that some countries may violate those inherent rights is irrelevant, and the fact that some of those countries may be common law is equally irrelevant. It's possible to believe both that Liverpool and the surrounding area is better off without this man free, but that the UK as a whole is worse off for their frequent violation of rights with regard to those in the US Bill of Rights.
- pjc50 5y ago
  The position that the US constitution applies to the UK is a pretty crazy piece of legal maximalism in the first place, but there is plenty of US caselaw that it doesn't apply equally to non-US nationals even within the US. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a... https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4170926 https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4170926 (which reminds me of the US failure to ratify certain international conventions under which it provides weaker rights)
  - pc86 5y ago
    I'm not meaning to imply that the USC applies to anyone other than US citizens from a legal standpoint. Not only am I not a lawyer, but I'm meaning to draw a distinction between legal rights and human rights in this context. I'm saying that the rights codified in the USC are inalienable rights. The US government isn't granting the freedom of speech, and it can't take it away. The right exists because you're a human being. The fact that a country doesn't recognize it as a right doesn't change its status.
    - pjc50 5y ago
      Yes, that's the usual human rights rationale but it's practically a theological one - that the rights have always existed and exist even if you can't see or action them. Interestingly ECHR doesn't bother to define what a right is or where they come from, leaving the implicit position being simple legal realism that the rights exist because this document says they do and the parties agreed to it. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Archives_1950_Convention_ENG.pdf https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Archives_1950_Convention_...
cm2187 5y ago
Fruit of the poisonous tree assumes that the real way they identified the target was through illegal means. It doesn't have to. Could be an anonymous tip, a suspicion from the police, etc.
- swarnie_ 5y ago
  Chap got 13 years, considering how lenient our sentencing usually is i can only assume he was moving massive quantities. Couldn't have gone unnoticed even in a place like Liverpool.
- jerf 5y ago
  "Fruit of the poisonous tree assumes that the real way they identified the target was through illegal means." But bear in mind that typically we read "illegal means" as some sort of deliberate violation of the law, whereas in the US it's more like there's a relatively carefully defined set of "legal means". There are a number of sources of inadmissible evidence that a common, normal person would probably consider perfectly moral to introduce as trial evidence, but is denied in the US. (At least, officially. Of course things can be cheated. I'm talking about the nominal system here, not the real one.) "Illegal means" means less in this context than it might normally.
anomaloustho 5y ago
After looking at the Wikipedia page for Parallel Construction[1], there is a subsection about the UK, it mentioned that one could argue that parallel construction is now a concept that applies in the UK as of 2016. It then points to an article on The Register subtitled “Enshrining parallel construction in English law”[2]. It looks like Section 56(1) of the Investigatory Powers Act prohibits “any content of an intercepted communication” from being used in court. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction [2] https://www.theregister.com/2016/12/06/parallel_construction_lies_in_english_courts/ https://www.theregister.com/2016/12/06/parallel_construction...
- tptacek 5y ago
  The UK doesn't even have the exclusionary rule --- in fact, most countries don't. There's no need for "parallel construction" there.
  - freeflight 5y ago
    The exclusionary rule ain't the only reason to engage in parallel construction. A whole long list of reasons can lead to that, a list that also includes criminal actions by the police itself.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    In many countries the parallel construction is to protect illegal police methods. They torture a criminal in an abandoned shed, or threaten to have his mother evicted, to get his list of associates. Then they cook up things like “fingerprints in a cheese photo” to make themselves seem very clever and also keep their methods concealed.
- deegles 5y ago
  There was an article[0] from 2018 about how the UK police monitor CCTV footage with "super recognisers" - people who have a way-above-average ability to remember and identify faces. Ostensibly, they would look at footage from previously captured crimes and then pick out the perpetrators by watching other footage. It just smells like a convenient source for parallel construction to me. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/11/super-recognisers-police-the-people-who-never-forget-a-face https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/11/super-recogn...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rootsudo 5y ago
Great explanation, I understood parallel construction and chain of custody but did not know it was due to "fruit of the poisonous tree."
- webmobdev 5y ago
  Watch this episode of The Good Wife (season 05, episode 13): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3540606/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3540606/ ...

adolph 5y ago

Parallel construction is also used to protect sources and methods.

adolph 5y ago
The perverting the course of justice charge alleges the trio disclosed information that law enforcement could access encrypted EncroChat data. https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/operation-venetic-police-worker-among-three-charged https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/operation-veneti...
LatteLazy 5y ago
In the UK, defense lawyers aren't allowed to reveal details if it harms future police operations. So again you don't need parallel construction.
- pc86 5y ago
  Does this result in a lot of sealed/private hearings where methods of gathering evidence are discussed? I'd imagine the majority of criminal prosecutions would involve at least some "trade secrets" (for lack of a better term) on the part of the police.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    There have been various rather nasty trials in which vital defense info was ruled both secret and inadmissible; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-interest_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-interest_immunity covers the most famous examples, particularly Matrix-Churchill which I'm just about old enough to remember. I believe ECHR 1998 has improved the situation a bit, although the existence of a court outwith the UK to which people can appeal their human rights violations is controversial and unpopular with the right.
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      Railing against the ECHR is arguably one of the things that sparked Brexit.
      - nojokes 5y ago
        Can you elaborate this a little?
        bobthepanda 5y ago
        A key point of Brexit is to "restore sovereignty." At least some of that ire is directed at the ECHR, which can issue rulings that override British rulings and parliament. One of the examples of this occurring is when the ECHR overturned a British ban on voting for prisoners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2) Like many things independence from the ECHR has not actually happened yet. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7e0577d5-e617-471a-8e00-5c964741965c https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7e0577d5-e617...
        LatteLazy 5y ago
        (it's worth nothing that ruling was in 2005 and prisoners still can't vote so it's not as much of an override as people might imagine)
        5y ago
- adolph 5y ago
  That sounds airtight—the defense lawyers surely wouldn’t say a word because it isn’t allowed.
  - toyg 5y ago
    It's sadly more common than one would think. There are some very undemocratic bits in the bowels of the UK justice system, and nobody that matters has any intention of fixing them. In fact, they are busy trying to import all the worst elements of the US system, removing legal aid so that poor people won't be able to bother the rich and powerful anymore.
nullc 5y ago
> Parallel construction is also used to protect sources and methods. And, of course, it is the unethical and unlawful methods which have the greatest need of "protection".
- User23 5y ago
  Snitches get stitches, or a dirt nap. Protecting a confidential informant sounds facially reasonable, but obviously abuses are possible.
  - nullc 5y ago
    In the US people have a right to face their accusers, to cross examine witnesses, to shake out lacking credibility or perverted motivations. If parallel construction is being used to conceal people who testified against you there might be a motivation for it that is more complicated than an outright end-run around your civil rights, but it's not clear that it's any more justified. Moreover, even if there is something that ought reasonably be protected misleading the court about it isn't the right way to do it: Say there is a confidential source. Let the court decide if the results can be admitted and under what terms. Allowing prosecutors to lie isn't the right answer, the state is already at a tremendous advantage without it being dishonest.
  - adolph 5y ago
    The central officer in this case made up drug crimes and confidential informants for years and his squad killed at least two people in an overtime padding scheme that was only found out because they recklessly shot each other on a raid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecan_Park_raid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecan_Park_raid

pc86 5y ago

I agree with you on the legal doctrine piece, but most in the US (myself included) would say that the US Constitution doesn't grant anybody any rights. It codified inalienable rights that exist for all people merely by virtue of their existence. Every person has the right to speak their mind, to defend themselves, to not incriminate themselves, etc. etc. with all the caveats and potential nullifications that accompany those rights. The fact that some countries may violate those inherent rights is irrelevant, and the fact that some of those countries may be common law is equally irrelevant. It's possible to believe both that Liverpool and the surrounding area is better off without this man free, but that the UK as a whole is worse off for their frequent violation of rights with regard to those in the US Bill of Rights.

pjc50 5y ago
The position that the US constitution applies to the UK is a pretty crazy piece of legal maximalism in the first place, but there is plenty of US caselaw that it doesn't apply equally to non-US nationals even within the US. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a... https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4170926 https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4170926 (which reminds me of the US failure to ratify certain international conventions under which it provides weaker rights)
- pc86 5y ago
  I'm not meaning to imply that the USC applies to anyone other than US citizens from a legal standpoint. Not only am I not a lawyer, but I'm meaning to draw a distinction between legal rights and human rights in this context. I'm saying that the rights codified in the USC are inalienable rights. The US government isn't granting the freedom of speech, and it can't take it away. The right exists because you're a human being. The fact that a country doesn't recognize it as a right doesn't change its status.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    Yes, that's the usual human rights rationale but it's practically a theological one - that the rights have always existed and exist even if you can't see or action them. Interestingly ECHR doesn't bother to define what a right is or where they come from, leaving the implicit position being simple legal realism that the rights exist because this document says they do and the parties agreed to it. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Archives_1950_Convention_ENG.pdf https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Archives_1950_Convention_...

cm2187 5y ago

Fruit of the poisonous tree assumes that the real way they identified the target was through illegal means. It doesn't have to. Could be an anonymous tip, a suspicion from the police, etc.

swarnie_ 5y ago
Chap got 13 years, considering how lenient our sentencing usually is i can only assume he was moving massive quantities. Couldn't have gone unnoticed even in a place like Liverpool.
jerf 5y ago
"Fruit of the poisonous tree assumes that the real way they identified the target was through illegal means." But bear in mind that typically we read "illegal means" as some sort of deliberate violation of the law, whereas in the US it's more like there's a relatively carefully defined set of "legal means". There are a number of sources of inadmissible evidence that a common, normal person would probably consider perfectly moral to introduce as trial evidence, but is denied in the US. (At least, officially. Of course things can be cheated. I'm talking about the nominal system here, not the real one.) "Illegal means" means less in this context than it might normally.

anomaloustho 5y ago

After looking at the Wikipedia page for Parallel Construction[1], there is a subsection about the UK, it mentioned that one could argue that parallel construction is now a concept that applies in the UK as of 2016. It then points to an article on The Register subtitled “Enshrining parallel construction in English law”[2]. It looks like Section 56(1) of the Investigatory Powers Act prohibits “any content of an intercepted communication” from being used in court. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction [2] https://www.theregister.com/2016/12/06/parallel_construction_lies_in_english_courts/ https://www.theregister.com/2016/12/06/parallel_construction...

tptacek 5y ago
The UK doesn't even have the exclusionary rule --- in fact, most countries don't. There's no need for "parallel construction" there.
- freeflight 5y ago
  The exclusionary rule ain't the only reason to engage in parallel construction. A whole long list of reasons can lead to that, a list that also includes criminal actions by the police itself.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  In many countries the parallel construction is to protect illegal police methods. They torture a criminal in an abandoned shed, or threaten to have his mother evicted, to get his list of associates. Then they cook up things like “fingerprints in a cheese photo” to make themselves seem very clever and also keep their methods concealed.
deegles 5y ago
There was an article[0] from 2018 about how the UK police monitor CCTV footage with "super recognisers" - people who have a way-above-average ability to remember and identify faces. Ostensibly, they would look at footage from previously captured crimes and then pick out the perpetrators by watching other footage. It just smells like a convenient source for parallel construction to me. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/11/super-recognisers-police-the-people-who-never-forget-a-face https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/11/super-recogn...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rootsudo 5y ago

Great explanation, I understood parallel construction and chain of custody but did not know it was due to "fruit of the poisonous tree."

webmobdev 5y ago
Watch this episode of The Good Wife (season 05, episode 13): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3540606/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3540606/ ...