Is it ever justified to bug lawyers' conversations with clients?

Posted at: 00:01

Hundreds of conversations at Woodhill Prison have been recorded secretly by police over the past six years, it has emerged.

	Is privacy a right in prison?

A whistleblower claimed bugging devices were allegedly hidden in specially-adapted visiting tables at the Category A prison, which houses many of Britain’s most notorious inmates including dozens of terror suspects.

The alleged covert recordings covered telephone calls, social visits, and even conversations between prisoners and their solicitors, suggesting that the bugging of Sadiq Khan MP was part of a much larger systematic operation.

There are now fears that defence solicitors could call for major criminal cases to be retried if they believe legally-privileged discussions have been recorded.

Does this activity completely undermine the legal visits process, which gives suspects the right to guaranteed absolute confidentiality in meetings with their lawyers?

Or are the police justified in using such methods to gather intelligence that could be used to prevent terrorist attacks?

Most certainly.The only difference between a lawyer and the client being interviewed in prison is that the lawyer is the one wearing a tie, or makeup.
Posted by alan maddox on February 10, 2008 2:38 PM
Report this comment

Given that all conversation at police stations (Evidence) have had to be recorded by law for decades, far from bugging, they should be recorded openly? By law! To put the lawyers on an equal footing with the police at least!
Posted by Ben Wheeler on February 10, 2008 2:04 PM
Report this comment

Graham King asks: "Why not bug prisoners? We might learn something to help prevent yet another crime being commited."

The touching naivete of readers like that (who seems to represent a little under 25% of the responses - but, I suspect, a higher proportion of the wider population) is typical of those who grasp neither the basic concepts of Liberty, Justice and Accountability nor the basic concepts of security.

With regard to the latter, any chance we may have had of gathering intelligence in such circumstances is now completely blown. Not only will no one on government-run premises be stupid enough to continue to act as though they are unmonitored, drying up the sources of information instantly, but, from now on, all lawyers can reasonably insist either on being allowed to "sweep" for bugs, to interview their clients on their own territory, or to take in masking devices to ensure their privacy.

There is one legitimate scenario and one only, in which such breach of privacy while awaiting trial can be justified. It is certainly not with regard to gathering evidence on a crime which has already been committed. That essentially constitutes a breach of the globally recognised human right not to be forced to incriminate ourselves.

Only when a future - and, crucially, lethal - attack is genuinely anticipated can we reasonably argue that the inmate's rights are outweighed by the Social interest in preventing deaths.

However, the real question does not revolve around what is really a "common sense" assessment of whether or not we should keep an eye on poisonous snakes we believe are about to strike, but whether it is reasonable in the circumstances to suspect a particular snake of being that poisonous or being that likely to strike. It is the oversight of that assessment where we have got it badly wrong.

In case it has escaped anyone's attention, the scales have fallen from our eyes. We no longer live in the Edwardian era when it was still unthinkable that Politicians or Policemen could be anything but paragons of virtue. For a raft of entirely legitimate reasons, it is now completely rational NOT to trust politicians, police or even Judges with the kind of authority we need to oversee something as dangerous as spying on our own citizens.

Spying on your own citizens is a major step - probably THE major step - on the road to Totalitarianism. There is only one way to allow such behaviour on the very rare occasions where it may be justified, whilst ensuring that we do not pave the way to such a hell with good intentions.

We must insist that no such serious measures are ever taken without the permission of a Jury of citizens, duly vetted and sworn to secrecy - though entitled to breach that secrecy if they witness abuse of power by the executive or its employees.

We like to believe that we live in a Democracy. We're wrong to believe it, but that's a different issue. One way, however, we can begin to make it true, is to establish Democratic control over our Justice and Security system. Juries of our fellow citizens are the only people we can or should trust with such dangerous authority.

This is the fundamental constitutional basis which lies at the heart of what I been describing as "Trusted Surveillance" for the past few years. (More on my web site)
Posted by Harry Stottle on February 10, 2008 12:43 PM
Report this comment

Yes, the conversations should ALWAYS be recorded and made available. To be honest there are more good reasons than bad ones and they should also be admissible in court.

Put it this way, the prosecution must disclose everything known about the alleged offence to the defence team BEFORE it gets to court, it is only right that the defence team must also reveal all the information that they are going to use in defence.

As the conversations between the accused and their legal team form part of the defence then they should be recorded and revealed to the court if requested. After all, all interviews with the accused and the Police are recorded...

Surely, only the GUILTY have anything to fear from this? if your really innocent of all charges then it's in your interest for all facts to be presented before the court. There's far too many Guilty Parties getting away with their crimes aided by slick defence teams who only present half a picture and hide the obvious.
Posted by Frank W on February 10, 2008 12:29 PM
Report this comment

As Mike Williams has pointed out, this discussion has become pointless, since the gaff is now well and truly blown. People will be guarding their tongues now that the media has splattered the matter all over the world.

Breaching the confidentiality between a defence lawyer and a client only undermines justice. Some people here have a touching faith in the moral fibre of the 'buggers'. Why on earth do they assume that such information stolen covertly would only be used for the good of all, and not for nefarious purposes? The fact that they are dishonourable enough sneakily to order the technicians to do it in the first place is surely sufficient warning that they are not upright, patriotic, and honest citizens.

There may be circumstances where a breach of the protocol is going on - ie client/lawyer communications are actually an information conduit, and not concerning matters to do with a pending court case. I would suggest that the monitoring of such intelligence in such an exceptional case may only be instigated by a judge - not a policeman, civil servant, or politician.

This is all part and parcel of the Labour Stasi instinct, and the Muslin terrorism threat has provided them an opportunity to cast off restraints (that were there for good reasons) to exercise their unhealthy instincts unnecessarily to control every aspects of our lives.

If we are really serious about cleaning up this latest terrorism, we are going to have to dilute our racism laws, and allow the authorities overtly to target on ethnic lines. The convolutions and contortions we are going through to avoid this would be becoming comical if the matter wasn't so serious.

There is an alternative possibility - is it possible that our government has surrendered competence over this area to the EU, and just isn't admitting it (again)?
Posted by Scott, East Anglia on February 10, 2008 10:08 AM
Report this comment

I'm with Simon Coulter (Feb 9, 12:49 PM) on this one. However I would add that in my opinion the latest disclosures have been deliberately leaked in order to move the debate from the surveillance of MPs, with which few would disagree, to the surveillance of lawyers and even priests - a far more contentious issue.


Posted by O Zangado on February 10, 2008 7:59 AM
Report this comment

If serving politicians are still working as barristers or solicitors and they're known to be personal friends of dangerous criminals with a tendency to cause mayhem. Then yes, like others I do believe they should be bug.

As others have said. since 9/11 we are at war with a dangerous, evil enemy. Unfortunately this time it is living amongst us.
Posted by Julia Breed on February 10, 2008 5:51 AM
Report this comment

The idea that there is a privileged relationship between lawyer and client in the UK is not correct. It is possible for files of papers and documents (that should be privileged) to be seized, albeit with a court order. Foreign lawyers, such as those from France and Italy, are protected from this. Thus one finds those who fear they may be bugged, or monitored employ a foreign lawyer.

The UK has a poor track record in the area of Human Rights. Simple as that.
Posted by Ivor Griffiths on February 10, 2008 4:20 AM
Report this comment

The attack on the hard won British liberties began with the Criminal Justice Bill, 1995, John Major.

You did not care then because it targeted eccentrics that you did not approve of.

Now you are reaping the fruit of your own neglect.

All this talk of revolution that I read in the posts reminds me of the armchair Marxists whose only concern is that everybody must agree with their dumb ideas.

I hate the f'in terrorists, but the last big excuse was the 'Jews who were sucking the lifeblood out of Germany.'

The next A.Hitler, who is not T.Blair, must be rubbing his hands with glee, knowing that there are masses of little hitlers just waiting for him to raise his head.

Most people over here have either forgotten what real fascism is or they are just dying for it to come back.
It sounds to me as if most of you have already fully joined up to standard European disinterest in basic freedoms. You are laying the ground for the Muslim fanatics to build their palace upon.

Posted by Old Nick Heavenly on February 10, 2008 1:52 AM
Report this comment

In cases of national security like terrorism and in cases of organised crime then Yes bugging is fully acceptable as is "strong" interogation.

If you have nothing to hide why worry? But there should be a clear definition as to which crimes warrant such treatment.

How much time and money is wasted by crooked solicitors abusing the system?
Posted by James G on February 10, 2008 1:34 AM
Report this comment

Yes.
The reason being, that prisoners have already forfited their right to total privacy.
Ive worked in prisons and all corospondance is vetted as are phone calls.
Why should visits be any different.
Posted by Steve Phillips on February 9, 2008 11:43 PM
Report this comment

I should say yes! For me two reason:-
one retired justice, two lucky to be
alive from the London blast(7/7)I just
miss the train that day; the police is
only doing theyre jobs, what you want them to do, i think not only the Government but all opposetion and the
liberty should support it:Ken
Posted by Cllr Ken Tiwari (Independent) on February 9, 2008 9:23 PM
Report this comment

Lawyers are eager that law remain a sort of game that they alone are allowed to play and according to their rules. The purpose of a trial ought to be to establish the truth. Lawyers ought to have no incentive for the guilty to go free. Just as police should not want the innocent to be convicted as they often seem to. If I was accused of a murder that I did not do I see no reason why I should care if the whole world was listening to what I told my lawyer.
Posted by Jack Zilroy on February 9, 2008 8:50 PM
Report this comment

Is it ever justified to bug lawyers' conversations with clients?

Of course it is, these are dishonest people! Some of the lawyers included!
Posted by phil b on February 9, 2008 8:49 PM
Report this comment

Lawyers are supposed officers of the court, yet more often than not, they gain their fat fees by cooking up the most preposterous defence. Since truth and justice have no part in their work,
bugging is possibly the only way to establish the truth. The same goes for politicians. Bug them all and let the truth come out.
Posted by ciccio on February 9, 2008 7:00 PM
Report this comment

yES i THINK BUGGING IS JUSTIFIED - FOR EXAMPLE IF THE INMATE WAS TONY BLAIR AND THE VISITOR GEORGE BUSH OR VICE VERSA.
Posted by IAN CAMERON on February 9, 2008 6:56 PM
Report this comment

Bugging and related intelligence gathering (by MI5, the CIA, re-formed KGB, et al) is going to occur no matter what we say or what the law is, so let's not go thinking that "against the law" really matters... powdered wigs are simply headgear. "Necessary according to the doers" is what matters: full stop, no exceptions, get reality.

Bugging of meetings with attorneys/solicitors is a clear violation but the guideline will end up being that what is gained cannot be used in evidence but can be used to provide information for futher investigations and evidence gathering/production: very gray area.

I draw a line at discussions in the confessional (and equivalents), between husband and wife (including committed partners), doctor and patient (including psychiatrists), and within the walls of AA/NA. There are probably a few I am forgetting here but my point should be adequately covered.

MP's should be held accountable for every breath they take as should government employees, consultants and advisors (ex the intelligence services, military, the PM and his/her immediate staff). These people are the employees of the taxpayer either directly or indirectly; they have a generally spotty if not even poor record. What they do and/or say is part of the public domain and owned by us unless it is specifically excluded as a matter of national security; and there is relatively little that falls into that category no matter what some deceptive, power-hungry MPs will say.

So that's my read be it right or wrong.

Posted by Henry Cave Devine on February 9, 2008 6:50 PM
Report this comment

In the case of normal criminals this of course is wrong, but any information obtained would not be admissable in court. In the case of terrorists any means of obtaining information, short of torture, would be excusable.
In the case of the recent bugging of an M.P.and a suspected terrorist, the visit was that of a personal friend. not as an M.P. To my mind bugging was entirely justified in the circumstances. We are known by the company that we keep.
Posted by Anthony Bootle on February 9, 2008 6:38 PM
Report this comment

Of course it is. Too many people think lawyers are somehow morally superior to other people, or any less likely to be criminally inclined. Most lawyers that take clients involved in organized crime are themselves implicated in organized crime, and many of those defending extremists and terrorists are sympathizers that act as go-betweens bringing information and messages to and from their clients, including in prison. So, yes....
Posted by Neil Ronan Coleman on February 9, 2008 6:20 PM
Report this comment

Do what my bank does when I 'phone them, just stick up a notice saying "...calls may be recorded for training purposes"
Posted by Tanya Hyde on February 9, 2008 6:18 PM
Report this comment

In practice, every one behind bars becomes guilty until proved innocent. For example, a vindictive officer can make totally unfounded allegations against a prisoner in a parole report. The prisoner will then discuss with his/her lawyer how to counter these allegations. If the authorities bug this discussion and feel the defence is good enough they can and do "forget" those allegations and spring a surprise and unexpected allegation at the hearing that the lawyer is not briefed to counter. The prisoner then gets a "knock back" of one or two years (which in practice can mean four or five while he waits for another hearing) and then the whole procedure starts again. In know - it happens to my fiancé and we never realised how !
Posted by mrs jacqueline staniforth on February 9, 2008 6:15 PM
Report this comment

Absolutesly agree with the practice if it happens.Especially wwhen national security involved, terrorists, drug dealers murderers rapes and every type of crime.The defence lawyers manipulate, exploit
every avenue to obtain legal aid fees and keep trials and appeals going for months or years all for cash.Record all interviews with criminal suspects
Posted by wilie hayburn on February 9, 2008 6:11 PM
Report this comment

I agree with Vivian Phillips. The confidential relationship between a defendant and his legal representative must remain sacrosanct. Exception should be made only in cases were the brief himself is known to be engaged in subterfuge or terrorism.
However, the decision to allow the bugging anyone must be made by a judge, not a politician or police officer.
Posted by Keith Lonsdale on February 9, 2008 5:05 PM
Report this comment

While it is not often that you will hear me championing the rights of criminals, I must protest to this latest display of the 'gestapo' police state in which we are now living.

A lawyer should be granted absolute privacy, regardless of whether his client is a woman seeking a divorce, or a man contesting a murder charge.
Posted by Bree Harding on February 9, 2008 5:05 PM
Report this comment

Once one has committed a serious offence (murder, offences involving physical violence, rape etc.) and is found guilty, all human rights should be forfeited. After all, if these individuals do not respect the human rights of their victims, why should they be granted the suchlike.
Treat these pigs as such, or better still, eliminate them as they only cost money.
Posted by Graham Spurrier on February 9, 2008 4:58 PM
Report this comment

Yes, if it is to catch a terrorist or a mobster who is responsible for murder.
covert operations are to protect us not to harm us, when will the P.C. brigade recognise this.
The ordinary prisoner should not be bugged during a visit from their lawyer.
Posted by Jean Kaye (ex pat); on February 9, 2008 4:08 PM
Report this comment

It is never justified to bug talks beween detainees and their lawyers for the reason clearly set out by David Davies that such disclosures will invariably form the basis for appeals and the guilty will walk.
Posted by Vernon E on February 9, 2008 4:01 PM
Report this comment

It's turning out like I thought the other day when the bugging story first broke. This surveillance in Britain is getting out of hand and the current cases we are now hearing about are just the tip of a very big iceberg. This government has been concentrating on surveillance since 9/11, auspiciously to fight terror, but increasingly I believe that terror is just being used as an excuse to monitor as many citizens as possible. One way the ID card will be used is to build up a picture of movements and purchases on each and every one of us. It's very sinister the way this government always smiles like a benevolent nanny as it snaps on the handcuffs over our once-treasured civil liberties.
Posted by Mike Mitchell on February 9, 2008 3:31 PM
Report this comment

"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not now mention something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Anything you subsequently say to your solicitor may be recorded".




Posted by Harvey on February 9, 2008 3:11 PM
Report this comment

No.
Posted by Stephen Melder on February 9, 2008 3:10 PM
Report this comment

Whether appeasers recognise it or not we are at war - an undeclared war maybe, but war nevertheless.

It may have passed their notice but the brave warriors of the 'other side' have accepted total war, choosing to kill civilians (including wonmen and children) simply because they provide a soft target.

If we to have any chance of winning this war then we must stop appeasing, and use any and all methods available to us. If this upsets terrorist's lawyers then tough!
Posted by Mike Bibby on February 9, 2008 2:35 PM
Report this comment

If the bugging was done only where terrorist suuspects were concerned then I am all for it. However given the 650 MPs/ ministers that this Country has and the rather peculiar, not to say elastic,moral values that they hold I feel that they would soon extend the practice far wider.
Therefore I can only say that I am against it.
Posted by Peter W on February 9, 2008 2:26 PM
Report this comment

Once it becomes known that conversations between a lawyer and his client might be bugged, the client is likely to be less frank in what he says to his lawyer than he otherwise might be, even if it turns out that the police aren't listening after all. That means that it will be much more difficult for any defendant at all to have a fair trial.
Posted by Michael Petek on February 9, 2008 2:16 PM
Report this comment

Terrorism is a military problem not a civil one. Military strategy needs intelligence however one can best get it and the civil lawyers making a lot of noise about the civil law breaches of bugging MPs etc. simply haven’t understood the game plan.
Posted by Paul J. Weighell on February 9, 2008 1:32 PM
Report this comment

How can an accused or convicted person have a proper dialogue with their solicitor about their case, including appeals etc if such conversation are to be recorded? If there is an allegation of maltreatment by prison officers, then this will get back to them and further maltreatment could result. Its nothing to do with that ridiculous argument that "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide!". Even those accused of serious crime are entitled to private discussions with their advisers.
Posted by Peter Salter on February 9, 2008 1:26 PM
Report this comment

Sadly we live in times different to those when these wonderful principles enshrined in our law were sacrocanct.
The failure of successive Governments to fail to heed the warning started by the likes of Enoch Powell and his followers,has resulted in the "multicultural" chaos in which we find ourselv3s today.
Privileges that used to exist between a lawyer and client will now have to sacrificed in order to give way to the more important priority of national security - ENGLISH national security that is.
Posted by alan madox on February 9, 2008 1:19 PM
Report this comment

War and terrorism, which is a covert form of war, are bound to have an impact on legal ethics.

My answer to the question is that those who deal with terrorists should waive the right to immunity from surveillance.

This would be in their own interest as well as that of the community in that it would provide immunity from the taint of suspicion.

Sadiq Khan as an MP who is also a friend of the suspect should, perhaps, have used an intermediary to communicate with the man, or have engaged in a written correspondence to protect himself from any negative associations that might be produced by his relationship with the man.




Posted by Rob U on February 9, 2008 1:16 PM
Report this comment

If you take the absolute moral position, long established, that the dialogue between lawyer and client is privileged - then monitoring it in any covert manner is unacceptable.

However, this is surely not about the Police Service casually breaching this etiquette in everyday cases - but the Service acquiring useful intelligence from these conversations in the case of those connected to terror offences.

We can pretend we don't know this but the Lawyer is often a conduit between the fall guy and his masters or confederates. The nature of the allegedly privileged conversations is then less about the pure defence case and more about this cell progressing without the detainee. This kind of information is vital to our national security.

End. Means. You takes your choice - there is no high moral ground when it comes to defending innocent citizens from indiscriminate terror attacks.
Posted by simon coulter on February 9, 2008 12:49 PM
Report this comment

Why so much fuss over the bugging of criminals in Jail?

Not that I think it's right, but yet again everyone takes the side of the criminal.

The fuss should start with the surveillance of normal law abiding citizens and the intrusion into private lives in a "free" country.

We should be in absolute uproar at the speed this country is moving to a Stalinist police state.
Posted by Graeme Pirie on February 9, 2008 12:47 PM
Report this comment

Ethics, my friends ! Where art thou?

By "bugging", I understand secret recording. Why not make it known, that conversations "may be recorded"? Everyone who does something secretly, is playing an unfair game.


Posted by TR Elison on February 9, 2008 12:44 PM
Report this comment

well not if you want to become another iran or saudi arabia or pakistan.
there must be line drawn not to be crossed.this is gonna happen to all of us if we don't stop it now the only difference is that to stop this 20 years from now it would be too late.we have paid a huge price for our freedom and let's not have dirty politicians take them away by their little dirty tricks.
Posted by ebbi britt on February 9, 2008 12:17 PM
Report this comment

Would solicitors, police etc be happy if we bugged them? I don't think so - but if it's OK for them to use this method, it should by OK for everyone to do so too!!!
Posted by Simple Simon on February 9, 2008 11:56 AM
Report this comment

If it means that the guilty are punished and the innocent protected then it can't be wrong.


Posted by bob stafford on February 9, 2008 11:55 AM
Report this comment

I believe that there are circumstances when monitoring of conversations are necessary; and Lawyers do not have to be lawyers, they have choice, like M.P.s

More important is the attitude of the courts; they seem to have forgotten that their presence is to uphold the values of society. Society values the 'Truth' and not an edited version determined by arcane rules of acceptable and non acceptable gathering of evidence.
Posted by Hedley on February 9, 2008 11:52 AM
Report this comment

yes yes yes.and i wish i'd learnt to lip read.
bring back the noose for all evil doers over the age of six.
Posted by steve d on February 9, 2008 11:47 AM
Report this comment

Yes if it helps to reveal guilt or innocence. Any method short of physical torture should be acceptable. Lawyers in their concern to preserve their importance will argue against this so that they can continue to strut and fret their highly paid hour in court.
Posted by John Holland on February 9, 2008 11:24 AM
Report this comment

"If that suspect is a terrorist, then the answer is
Yes, bug them and do all we can to prevent
attacks."

Read your words again and see how foolish they
are. "If that SUSPECT .. IS .. a terrorist."

Are they a terrorist or are they a suspect? They
can only move from one (suspect) to the other
(terrorist) after a FAIR trial, and a fair trial
involves not having the prosecution bug the
defence in order to coach witnesses and
undermine the defence's case.

Where does all this nonsense stop? Does Gordon
Brown bug David Cameron "in the national
interest" to outwit him at PMQs? Where will it
end?


Posted by Kay Tie on February 9, 2008 11:23 AM
Report this comment

Yes, we should bug defence lawyers: as long as we
bug prosecution lawyers, witnesses, the police, the
CPS, Home Office officials and Government
ministers.


Posted by Kay Tie on February 9, 2008 11:17 AM
Report this comment

Small bands of alien fanatics are achieving what Hitler could never do: the emasculation of our parliamentary democracy and the revocation (only provisional, of course!) of such basic constitutional rights as habeas corpus and now privilege. Of course Big Brother knows best and, if a few mistakes are made along the way, we have to understand that they are excusable because the perpetrators are human after all - but we can rest assured that they will receive their just deserts by being moved to another better paid position in government or industry where they can mull over their mistakes while considering what to do with their golden goodbye.
Posted by Alexander Grant on February 9, 2008 10:54 AM
Report this comment

I'm in favour of anything that fights the spread of Islam, illegal drugs, organised crime and convicts paedophiles.
Posted by paul atherton on February 9, 2008 10:48 AM
Report this comment

Yes.
If you are innocent you shouldn't fear that your conversations have been recorded.
If you are guilty I don't care a damn about your presumed right to conceal the truth.
Politicians should give an example,to the exclusion of public safety and national security matters I would render public property all their talks regarding common good.
Actually the word privacy about politicians should be an oxymoron.
Posted by Peter the Rock on February 9, 2008 10:30 AM
Report this comment

I am always bugging people and the results are priceless. I once did it to colleagues at work and its amazing the regard in which they held me. Some of them actually thought that I was an overbearing, self-righteous, pompous git! However, to my face they were so pleasant and affable, I had to bite my tongue.
I agree wholeheartedly with bugging, but the best results are obviously achieved when done secretly. Therefore the Government should "Ban it" completely as far as the nation is concerned but carry on regardless.
Posted by Ralph Simpson on February 9, 2008 10:29 AM
Report this comment

Yes. Absolutely.

I would not be surprised at anything solicitors would do for money.



Posted by Marie Chambers on February 9, 2008 10:05 AM
Report this comment

What nonsense

Any surveillance against a lawyer an MP or anyone else must be authorised at an appropriate, lawful level. This must involve a reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in crime or public harm.

The Surveillance Commissioners can see all records of those activities that are authorised, sometimes having to give their own approval prior to the act being undertaken.

They can also quash any activity that they think is not justified under the law, at any stage
Posted by john on February 9, 2008 9:59 AM
Report this comment

If there were a blanket ban on bugging conversations between criminals in prison and their solicitors or legal representatives then corrupt solicitors would be used as messengers between criminal masterminds and their associates. PACE is quite clear that legal privilege ceases to be privileged when such material is generated in the furtherance of criminality. Each case for bugging a solicitor in any context should be and is viewed on a case by case basis.
Posted by Gordon Young on February 9, 2008 9:55 AM
Report this comment

There is no reason why conversations with
lawyers should be sacrosanct. The whole point of
the legal system is to get at the truth, not to
establish which lawyer is cleverer and if bugging
helps to achieve this, let it be so.
Posted by George Herbert on February 9, 2008 9:40 AM
Report this comment

Oh, YES!!!

I believe, like most people, that terrorists, or suspected terrorists, have no rights and should be bugged when in the company of others...... especially lawyers or politicians!!
Posted by LB on February 9, 2008 9:37 AM
Report this comment

Our legal system is biassed in favour of the criminal. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its various interpretations by different Chief constables and the totally incompetent CPS (what Lawyer would work for a pittance unless he / she is useless) has made conviction almost impossible. Even in guilty plea cases, Judges have been known to send the defendant out to reconsider. Of course the taxpayer pays so it doesn't matter. As the defendent has the right (usually) to see the police evidence before interview, I think it only fair for the police (usually) to know what story the defendant and lawyer are cooking up in advance. This will indeed result in a fair trial and maybe then more scumbags will be removed from our streets.
Posted by Bob on February 9, 2008 9:36 AM
Report this comment

If it's matter of national security then of course it is right to bug policians' conversations, especially when they are seeking out suspected terrorists for their chats.

The real crux is that the idiotic Blair created the climate of fears and paranoia when he first opened the floodgates so that hundreds of thousands of aliens could come into this country, then lost track of them. To make matters worse, this Duce of Europe, who reminds me more of Mussolini every day, then followed his master, the US president, into the mire of endless war in the middle east creating a feeding ground for hatred of all things British.

Of course we have to monitor conversations between MPS and suspects, especially now that ten years of Blairism and made us so cynical about the honesty of MPS in general.
Posted by Winston Smith on February 9, 2008 9:31 AM
Report this comment

What horrifies me is that some people here think this is a good idea, Let me ask you how many people do you think are now going to be honest with their brief at Woodhill or any other prison?
This information will be all around the prison now on the jungle drums, so from now on any information will not be forthcoming from the prisoners.
Really clever intelligence that.
Posted by mike williams in Bangkok on February 9, 2008 9:27 AM
Report this comment

If client confidentiality cannot be sanctified, then
prisoners will simply not talk.

In certain individual cases it may be necessary,
that is really uo to the pople involved closely with
a case. It's when bugging becomes state
sanctioned that's when it starts to become scary.

With this government anything's possible.


Posted by Pinkie on February 9, 2008 9:25 AM
Report this comment

In prison and terroism suspects, Emphatically yes, i can envisage the amount of not guilty pleas being more than halved. I would wager many guilty people have hatched plots with their lawyers under the confidentiality rule, it's high to time this practice was busted for good. But unfortunately this would be detrimental to lawyers incomes.
Posted by Mike Rowefone on February 9, 2008 9:24 AM
Report this comment

Everyone needs to get a sense of perspective - No lawyer, politician or any other individual can be routinely put under any kind of surveillance unless reasonable grounds that they are involved in crime can be demonstrated to a suitably senior officer.

All of those authorised actions are then available for scrutinisation (and cancellation) by the OSC and its inspectors
Posted by John A on February 9, 2008 9:14 AM
Report this comment

NO! NO! NO! Such practices are anathema in a democracy. They are however complately suited to anti-Democracy states such as the EU. Perhaps Jack Straw is getting ready for Europe.
Posted by harry fredericks on February 9, 2008 9:10 AM
Report this comment

Of course they should be bugged if they are dealing with major criminals, e.g. IRA murderers, muslim murderers, etc. Many of the lawyers servicing those people are known to be very suspect themselves anyway.
Posted by David on February 9, 2008 9:03 AM
Report this comment

It's up to the security services, they are the experts, as far as I am concerned they can bug who they like when they like, since 9-11 the gloves came off. It's just the way it has to be, can't take one chance in a million.

Derek McDonald,
Saigon, Vietnam.
Posted by Derek McDonald on February 9, 2008 8:51 AM
Report this comment

YES

In many, many cases those representing major criminals - terrorists in particular - cannot be trusted some are dishonest all have mainly monetary intersts.
There was (is?) an old saying "There are lies, dam lies and an Old Bailey Defence"
Posted by EDWARD MICHAELS on February 9, 2008 8:47 AM
Report this comment

This is difficult. If that suspect is a terrorist, then the answer is Yes, bug them and do all we can to prevent attacks.

If the suspect is a bank robber or a rapist, then should they be treated differently?

If I were in this situation and talking to my lawyer about my case, then I'd be pretty unhappy if I found out I'd been bugged.

Suspects will be careful about telling the truth to their representatives.....

Posted by John Buckland on February 9, 2008 8:34 AM
Report this comment

What is much more worrying than New Labour's neo-gestapo state is the number of people who support it!
Posted by Hugh Thomas on February 9, 2008 8:21 AM
Report this comment

The answer has to be NO, client confidentiality is at the very heart of the judicial system, without it it is impossible to have a fair trial as the client will be very guarded about what they have to say to their brief.
This does just go to show you how far and endemic the surveilance is now in the UK, very frightening for democracy as a whole.
Posted by mike williams in Bangkok on February 9, 2008 8:14 AM
Report this comment

Given that lawyers are only slightly higher in the pecking order of dishonesty and trough-hogging than politician's I htink that bugging them should be compulsory. In fact most of them should be in prison along with their criminal friends.

Cheers,

Charles
Posted by Charles Baxter on February 9, 2008 7:59 AM
Report this comment

If it's a matter of national security then yes, but the problem here is what constitutes national security?

When we live in times of fabricated national threats we can then end up with people (scapegoats) being threatened, arrested, monitored and bugged, that are completely innocent.

Perhaps we should bring back justice into our vocabulary instead of always using the word 'legality', for these are two different things entirely and one is hardly ever in action in Britain in the year 2008. Especially for the indigenous population.

Is it therefore 'just' to bug peoples private conversations?

The other consideration is when we have a government that lives continually in fear of being found out for their treachery, then perhaps it should come as no surprise that bugging people becomes common place.


Posted by Charles Crosby on February 9, 2008 7:35 AM
Report this comment

Of course there are occasions when bugging is justifiable.Public safety and national security are examples.
Posted by syd cartwright on February 9, 2008 6:47 AM
Report this comment

No.

Posted by M P Telkman on February 9, 2008 6:33 AM
Report this comment

whatever happens,the outcome is the good old British taxpayer(mugs) will be picking the bill up.
Posted by Mr Barnett on February 9, 2008 6:26 AM
Report this comment

Conversations with lawyers should be sacrosanct. As should conversations with Doctors, Priests and other people who hear sensitive information. It has long been a tradition that such people are trusted by the public to keep confidences. Not under New Labour. Half the confessionals in the land are probably bugged in the hope of hearing someone admit to something that can be used against them. It shows the level of arrogance that has been reached by a government and its officials who now consider themselves above the law and any notion of decency or honour.

This is truly getting into the realms of a police state, run by dishonest politicians and the associated corrupt public officials who implement their diktats. There may be the usual whimper of objection from the Conservatives followed by silence and aquiescence which will be taken as a signal by New Labour to go even further. We have the most unpleasant government in living memory going virtually unhindered about the business of killing democracy, spying and controlling absolutely everything. The Conservatives should be cudgelling the government every day about their excesses, we hear barely a word. It's a good job that we still have a press which is prepared to go after these so-called public servants. It is pretty well the only vehicle of opposition left.
Posted by Simon on February 9, 2008 6:20 AM
Report this comment

YES
Posted by EDWARD MICHAELS on February 9, 2008 6:13 AM
Report this comment

If it saves lives, then yes it is justified. The trouble with lawyers is that to many of them know that there clients are guilty and just want to get them off by any means.
Posted by Ged for New England on February 9, 2008 6:13 AM
Report this comment

YES
Posted by EDWARD MICHAELS on February 9, 2008 6:12 AM
Report this comment

If a suspect, particulary of terrorism, is unable to provide reasonable accounts of his/her movements over a specific period, then it is only common sense that they be subject to close monitoring by whatever technological means are available. What I think is deeply troubling is the extraordinary extent to which, so called, legal represenatives, of those suspected of posing a threat to UK citizens are prepared to put at risk the lives of so many people and to make so much money from it!

Of course it is right to bug conversations of any suspects who are intent on destroying our society. Who better than to trust than our Security Services who remain a potent force for rooting out those who would wish to see democracy undermined.

Ian Law
Posted by ian law on February 9, 2008 5:47 AM
Report this comment

Politically I am slightly to the right of Attilla the Hun but even I am appalled by these revelations. Surely this must be a resigning or preferably sacking matter. Its just not good enough for the people ultimately responsible for this to say we did not know or were not told.



Posted by The Corporal 12th Foot on February 9, 2008 5:26 AM
Report this comment

Dear Sirs,
As always we are urged to trust those who firmly believe that it is soley because of their own activities, the remainder of the population can sleep at night. Under our law, any suspicion of interference between a suspect and his brief can lead to a request for a retrial with excellent grounds for a mistrial to be ordered. Oh! Woe is us. Once again we have been led up the garden path by these fools protesting that what they do is in the public interest. Not only have we been lied to but all those dangerous people who rightly deserve to be banged up will now be clamouring for a retrial based on these revelations, especially those with the financial clout to foster such action.
We have been lied to by our elected leaders who instantly claim ignorance of that which only could occur with their express permission. A doubletake so fast that it would win a entire episode of Yes Minister. Do these fools really think that we fall for such juvenile excuses. Perhaps he or she had a tummy ache!The fact that they have plainly broken the law is cynically exemplified by the speed at which the establishment is closing ranks and immediately bringing a prosecution against an honorouble man who felt that the truth was a little more important than the needs of his masters.
I wrote about such activities in the Telegraph only yesterday concerning the identity of these faceless members of society and how such activities lead to eventual revolution when the population revolt against intrusion into their privacy, homes, banking and communications, all in the name of whom? We shall see more of this as decent men and women blow harder on the whistle of freedom and watch the desparate lashback as the faceless ones protest their activities as in our name. They do not. We live in for what some see, as an inconvenient democracy. Something that should be watched, recorded and monitored. Who then is the enemy?
Posted by Vivian J Phillips on February 9, 2008 5:08 AM
Report this comment

Rock and Hard place, meet Devil and Deep blue sea.

How am I supposed to negotiate the territory between a blatant abuse of State Powers, and something which justifiably irritates and undermines Solicitors who assist crime and criminals?

I'll let Hobson take this choice.
Posted by M.P. G. Lord Howe on February 9, 2008 5:06 AM
Report this comment

And some in the US thought the "raskaly" Republicans, led by the "evil Bush," were taking away civil liberties.

Nothing compared with what happens under a Labour regime.
Posted by Dick West on February 9, 2008 4:52 AM
Report this comment

Attorney/client priviledge is there for a reason. It should never be breached. Once it is breached, regardless of how small it seems, the breach will only get larger.
Posted by 915-203-6908 on February 9, 2008 3:54 AM
Report this comment

No, no and no.
Posted by Simon Evans on February 9, 2008 3:27 AM
Report this comment

NO. But people will try it anyway.
Posted by Scott, East Anglia on February 9, 2008 2:06 AM
Report this comment

What's more important - a terrorist's supposed right to privacy, or the lives of who knows what number of innocent people?

If bugging thwarts only one murder by a terrorist, then obviously the bugging is justified.
Posted by Herbert Thornton on February 9, 2008 1:24 AM
Report this comment

YES
Posted by Nosy Parker on February 9, 2008 12:13 AM
Report this comment