5 ms·

Parallel construction is also used to protect sources and methods.

by adolph 5y ago

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)
        kergonath 5y ago
        > Like many things independence from the ECHR has not actually happened yet. Independence from the ECHR does not follow from leaving the EU. To get out of the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK would have to leave the Council of Europe. The Convention is also in the Brexit agreement. Though of course whether the tories will follow the provisions of the treaties they sign is another matter.
        bobthepanda 5y ago
        I know that but that's certainly not what was sold. The link I provided says as much.
        kergonath 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

Parallel construction is also used to protect sources and methods.

by adolph 5y ago

Parallel construction is also used to protect sources and methods.

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)
        kergonath 5y ago
        > Like many things independence from the ECHR has not actually happened yet. Independence from the ECHR does not follow from leaving the EU. To get out of the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK would have to leave the Council of Europe. The Convention is also in the Brexit agreement. Though of course whether the tories will follow the provisions of the treaties they sign is another matter.
        bobthepanda 5y ago
        I know that but that's certainly not what was sold. The link I provided says as much.
        kergonath 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