4 ms·

> This is a high-profile case, which could make or break the reputation of this solicitor. She is bound to frame the ruling in a positive light, no matter how i

> This is a high-profile case, which could make or break the reputation of this solicitor. She is bound to frame the ruling in a positive light, no matter how ineffectual she knows it to be. I remain unconvinced. I don't see that you can infer this soley from her representation. I have seen many solicitors strongly condemn a ruling and admit a complete failure, although not in those words. > They are still going to discover evidence of any unrelated criminal activity, and as far as I'm aware this ruling doesn't prevent them launching separate criminal investigations — the police announced today they are doing precisely this. I have not read the ruling, so it is impossible for me to know for certain what it prohibits. I think it's pretty unlikely that they would make a ruling that prohibited nothing without at least some mention of it by someone with knowledge.

UVB-76 13y ago
The Bindmans website [1] has the wording of the injunction. The national security exemption allows the authorities to continue to do whatever they please (specifically: inspect, copy, disclose, transfer, distribute) with the materials seized from Miranda, provided it is done "for the purpose of the protection of national security" It is trivial for the authorities to seize this exemption, as they have a reasonably held belief the material poses a threat to national security. If they don't use the former exemption, they can use the latter, which allows them to play the terrorism card. [1] http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/court-rule-on-miranda-injunction-application http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/court-r...