BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Allowing intercepts as evidence will hopefully increase the transparency of the warrant-granting pro...

Admitting wiretap evidence would result in an inevitable ‘creep’ which would result in the mis-allocation of resources to tackle crime. Wire-tap permits are rarely refused by the judiciary and allowing them to be used as evidence will expand their use beyond terrorism and organised crime. Add to this the fact that wiretaps are expensive, have a poor success rate at trial in those countries where they are allowed and waste resources (FBI officers commented that they spent much of their time listening to mob underlings ordering take-out food rather than being out on the street busting drug dealers).
Wire-tap evidence quite simply works. It is highly effective in preventing crime and securing convi...

Wire-tap evidence quite simply works. It is highly effective in preventing crime and securing convictions once crimes have been committed. In the UK in 2003 alone, intercepts led to the seizure of 26 tonnes of drugs and detected fraud and money laundering to the value of £390m, resulting in 1680 arrests. It is madness that this evidence cannot then be used to convict those clearly implicated in crime who must otherwise be released without charge. Similarly, were jurisdictions who allow intercept evidence to cease to do so, the result would be criminals such as terrorists (where it is vital to stop the crime from actually be committed) either being held without trial or being allowed to go free. The variety of uses of intercept evidence is vast; it can show where suspects were at certain times, who they met or talked to, and even record exact details of conspiracies. They are also of course valuable in situations where they could be used to prove the innocence of a suspect. These are the functions that wiretap evidence should perform and thus courts should be able to hear this evidence.
Those countries which do not allow intercept evidence have created a bizarre form of legal limbo in ...

Those countries which do not allow intercept evidence have created a bizarre form of legal limbo in order to do so. British courts admit intercepts from phones on a private network, calls on the public network where one party is an informant, and tapes from bugs. Most strangely of all, they allow intercept material lawfully obtained by foreign polices forces. This led to the conviction of the Merseyside drugs squad chief Elmore Davies for his corrupt relationship with drugs baron Curtis Warren on the basis of intercept evidence gathered on Dutch mobile phones by the Dutch police force, but where some conversations took place entirely in the UK. Thus, in order to maintain the intercept prohibition, Britain ends up with inconsistent legal standards which are damaging to the accountability and transparency of its courts and legal system. Allowing wire-tap evidence would remove these anomalies.
It is widely accepted that intercept evidence could usefully form part of a prosecution or defence c...

It is widely accepted that intercept evidence could usefully form part of a prosecution or defence case in many trials. Every western democracy except the UK and Ireland uses wire-tap evidence and the convictions they achieve using it suggest that they are not wasting their time. Further, the UK already accepts the utility of wiretap evidence by using it in some cases, with only legal prohibitions preventing wider use. Similarly, David Bickford, the former chief legal adviser to MI5 has stated that ¨I know we have lost cases as a result of not using such evidence¨ and Sir Ian Blair, Britain’s National Criminal Intelligence Unit and the Bar Council have all called for such evidence to be used. Such high-profile backing is not just an argument by authority, but also increases the number of suspects detained without trial or legal recourse because those figures who would authorise their trials are not confident of gaining convictions. This makes denial of wiretap evidence for trials a civil liberties issue. Similarly, allowing such evidence may well increase the scrutiny of wire-taps used in investigations by the intelligence services.
The UK and other jurisdictions have rules of evidence which would prevent the release of sensitive i...

The UK and other jurisdictions have rules of evidence which would prevent the release of sensitive information from the intelligence services. It is perfectly possible to separate the evidence required (the record of a phone call of 3 mins having taken place between two suspects who deny having been in contact) from the method of gathering that evidence and the scale of the gathering operation. In addition, it is not the evidence itself which is cross-examined in court, but rather expert witnesses and their certainty that a voice on a recording is that of the accused, or the reliability of voice matching technology. Therefore because cross-examination is one step away from the intercept process it can be used as stand-alone evidence in court in the same way as any other evidence without revealing too much information about its source.
Intercept evidence is often not decisive to a case, but it is very useful for showing associations b...

Intercept evidence is often not decisive to a case, but it is very useful for showing associations between groups of people which can be used in conspiracy trials. It can also show the unreliable character of witnesses who deny having contact with involved parties when intercept evidence proves that they have been in communication. Of course intercept evidence is not as good as DNA, but it does have its uses and importantly is another tool that both the prosecution and defence can use but do not have to.\ The problem that exists at the moment is an asymmetry (uneven balance) of capabilities where defence lawyers often do not have access to intercept evidence that might help their client’s cases. Allowing such evidence would at the very least present options to both sides. Even if the evidence only works in a handful of trials, there is no harm in allowing it to be used. Further, techniques for examining intercepts are advancing all the time, with acoustic identification and image matching becoming ever more accurate.
Claims about the revelation of intelligence-gathering capabilities due to open trials and the Europe...

Claims about the revelation of intelligence-gathering capabilities due to open trials and the European Convention of Human Rights are based on misinformation. Judges can hold closed trials, just as they often do in terrorist cases already, and they can allow only the legal teams access to some information. They can also derogate (declare a partial suspension) from the ECHR in circumstances where doing so is required to protect ‘national security’, which protecting the country against terrorism clearly is.\ Similarly, if intelligence services deliberately withhold information, this is a case of them acting beyond their remit and falls under the jurisdiction of bodies such as the JISC in the UK and should be regulated and punished accordingly. It is not an argument to say that a policy is flawed because intelligence agencies may commit crimes in order to avoid implementing that policy.\
Allowing intercepts as evidence will hopefully increase the transparency of the warrant-granting pro...

Allowing intercepts as evidence will hopefully increase the transparency of the warrant-granting process across the board, requiring the intelligence services and police to be more specific about their purposes and provide more justification of why a tap would produce results. It is often only when resources are squeezed that the most effective system for their allocation emerges. There should therefore be a spill-over effect of increasing our liberties overall by reducing the quantity of dubious surveillance in society. This is why the NGO Justice favours the admissibility of wiretap evidence, not just for that evidence which is submitted, but for the consequent effects on wiretaps in general.
Wire-tap evidence quite simply works. It is highly effective in preventing crime and securing convi...

The debate over wire-tap evidence is not just confined to the courtroom but rather includes both the supply and demand sides of the intelligence chain. We need to balance on one hand, the value of possibly inconclusive wiretap evidence against the harms caused to security services by the revelation of sensitive intelligence gathering techniques under cross-examination. Further, because the sources of intercept evidence are secretive intelligence agencies, it is very difficult to ensure that full disclosure, cross-examination and the rules of evidence in open court will be applied. These factors combine to complicate wiretap evidence sufficiently to mean that it should not be accepted in court but should be retained only as a powerful method to crack smuggling rings, terrorist cells and criminal organisations.
Those countries which do not allow intercept evidence have created a bizarre form of legal limbo in ...

Where it is true that there are legal anomalies, these exist for good reason. Foreign governments can choose to reveal their intelligence gathering methods if they want, that does not mean the British government should. If one of the subjects of a wiretap is an agent or informer then it follows that we should be able to record this conversation just as when undercover agents wear wires. Further, private internal networks are technically easy to intercept as they are small and fixed.\ However, the opposition do not have to argue that the legal limbo at the moment is acceptable. Instead they can argue for a blanket ban on any such evidence and a strict separation between intelligence gathering and prosecution activities.
It is widely accepted that intercept evidence could usefully form part of a prosecution or defence c...

The argument that the proposition has supporters within the legal profession is simply an argument by authority. It also ignores the fact that those states which do use wiretap evidence have other judicial features which weight court cases in favour of the prosecution. Their intelligence services come under heavy criticism for not revealing all the information available to them, unsafe convictions are overturned on the basis of supplementary evidence which comes to light after suspects have been imprisoned for several years, and their rules of evidence allow more proceedings in closed or military courts for terrorist trials.\ Further, there is no consensus within the legal profession on intercept evidence and just as in the UK there are proponents, in the USA there is a large academic community which highlights its failures in federal courts. The opposition does not need to accept that just because most countries have something that it must be good; it can rather argue that those countries which do admit wiretap evidence should cease to do so.
The UK and other jurisdictions have rules of evidence which would prevent the release of sensitive i...

The intelligence agencies such as GCHQ oppose the use of wiretap evidence in courts because doing so would reveal the evidence-gathering capabilities of the agencies and hence make them less effective in disrupting terrorism and serious crime. The problems are twofold, firstly that the evidence being presented would allow criminals to learn who and what the intelligence services are monitoring and hence shift their methods of communication, perhaps encrypting emails or using disposable mobile phones. Secondly, that scientific evidence such as forensics need to be cross-examined in order for the trial process to be fair, and allowing full cross-examination might reveal how the intelligence is gathered and the scale of monitoring operations. The justice system needs to bear in mind that bringing criminals to trial is not its only objective, rather disrupting criminal and particularly terrorist activities (which would be harmed were wiretap evidence to be revealed in court) is often more important than bringing them to trial.
Public survey shows support for electronic tagging

Public survey shows that 64% of people believe that non-violent offenders should be tagged as opposed to being sent or kept in prison. 65% of people also believed that offenders should be tagged even if they have not presently been charged. The majority of the community think positively about the tagging system. (1) (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2001/life_of_crime/e_tagging.stm
If an offender tries to remove a tag, they face consequences

The only circumstances where a subject would not face breach action for removing a tag would be on health and safety grounds. If an offender removes or damages their tag during their curfew period, the monitoring equipment at the premises immediately sends a signal to the computer system at the control centre. By removing a tag, the offender will either receive a custodial sentence, a fine or they can even be recalled to prison. Offenders are on the tag for a reason and there is no escaping from it.
Tagged offenders have re-offended

A BBC statistic shows that 2% of tagged offenders have re-offended while on the tag – most of these were driving offences. (1) It does not matter that 2% seems like a relatively small number: the fact on the matter is that it should be 0%. Harry Fletcher, from the National Association of Probation Officers, said: “There’s still no evidence that it has reduced crime or prevented offenders from committing further offences.” (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/life_of_crime/e_tagging.stm
Tagging is a ‘soft option’

Of course offenders prefer tagging to a life behind bars. Whenever a tagged offender takes advantage of his freedom to commit further crimes, it attracts damaging headlines. Tagging does not in itself achieve anything, apart from confining someone to the house. If it were to be combined with a probation order, it allows offenders to be worked with in a more structured way who might have been leading quite chaotic lives. It does not really act as a deterrent.
British prisons are overcrowded

But at what cost? Surely it is better to build more prisons than to free offenders, back into the community where they can offend again? And doesn’t it act as less of a deterrent if prisoners know they will be released early? Hampshire has currently up to 5,000 youths on electronic tag the police have no power of arrest the equipment is not failproof and is often not monitored effectively the system needs to be updated and reviewed there is no immediate penalty if breached the time delays of notification are 7-11 days for G4S to contact probation (if total breach is over 2 hours) and the time span for them to act is within 21 days if at all , it depends on their risk assessment . How do I know all this in march 2007 my son was murdered by Ricki Johnson who was on tag and had a strict curfew the fact that he was out from 5pm until 4am on the night he murdered Lewis and had continually breached his curfew and still no one realised even up until his remand for murder begs the question why multiple offenders (25 arrests and 11 convictions including violence and assulting an officer)are given a tag which relies on their participation I am in the process of petitioning for change before another innocent life is lost in this way .what do you think now !!!!
Public survey shows support for electronic tagging

The public are not the leading experts in the field and so little weight should be put on their opinions. Harry Fletcher, from the National Association of Probation Officers, said: “There’s still no evidence that it has reduced crime or prevented offenders from committing further offences.” Given this is a more reliable source, surely more weight should be put on this decision. The public do not know what is good for them until it is too late.???????? yes the public are the experts in the field because they are in the field, and Harry Fletcher is only justifying his job. The probation service is an expensive joke.
The system has become lax

According to a recent BBC report, inspectors found that criminals who have been tagged can break their curfews for more than eleven hours and still not be arrested. The Tories said tags must be used ‘appropriately’ with ‘swift and effective sanctions’ for any breaches. (1) Surely this is how it should be? If tags were a good idea and effectively policed, the system would not be lax and an immediate arrest made if the curfew was breached. (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7694276.stm
Violent crime has been committed

It does not matter how many lives the electronic tagging system may save; it does not matter how much room it saves in prison: all that matters is that lives have been taken by those who have been electronically tagged. If these people had been inside prison, some young individuals would still be alive. Lewis Singleton, an 18 year-old, was brutally stabbed to death by a man who had a history of violence, and had previously burgled a residence a few days before when his curfew said he should have been at home. Lewis’s mother said: “People with a violent record shouldn’t be allowed curfew orders and liberty. If this had happened, Lewis might have had a chance and still be alive today”. (1) (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7246583.stm
Those who have served their time should no longer be monitored

It does not make sense that those who have served their time in prison should then be subject to an electronic tag around their ankle to ensure they stay at home during hours of darkness. Offenders who serve at least three months but less than four years can be released early, if they agree to be tagged. (1) Provided that prison has rehabilitated the prisoner, surely at the end of their sentence justice allows them to go out in the evening to. The electronic tag effectively extends the prison sentence. (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2001/life_of_crime/e_tagging.stm
British prisons are overcrowded

Electronic tagging was initially introduced in an attempt to reduce crowding in British prisons. British prisons are overcrowded and this is a very good idea to relieve the overcrowding. At any one time, 2,000 people are tagged (1) and completing their sentences at home or in a hostel, therefore removing more people from busy prisons. (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2001/life_of_crime/e_tagging.stm
Global terrorism calls for aggressive responses. We cannot allow our nation to be besieged by terro...

Restrictions on Habeas Corpus undermine the war against terror and put our national security further at risk. Habeas Corpus legitimizes the war against terror by ensuring that US actions against suspected terrorists have some legal basis and are not purely subjective. Furthermore, if the US disregards Habeas protections, it sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world to follow. If other countries followed suit, US citizens abroad could be indefinitely detained with no legal recourse.
There is a longstanding tradition of suspending Habeas Corpus protections during times of war and co...

The current war on terror is not comparable to past wars during which Habeas Corpus was suspended. Both the Civil War and World War II were openly declared wars of limited duration following invasions by hostile forces. The “war on terror” is nebulous and open-ended. In any case, history has harshly judged arbitrary detentions during wartime. Lincoln’s Civil War detentions and Roosevelt’s Japanese internment camps of the 1940s are embarrassing chapters in our national history. The fact that former presidents improperly suspended Habeas Corpus is all the more reason to exercise caution now.
The hatred our enemies feel for America does not depend on details of our legal system. They hate u...

Our enemies hate the freedoms, prosperity and opportunities of America, as well as the way the United States is admired for these throughout the world. One of their aims is to demonstrate that the USA is an oppressive state in order to make our model less attractive to others. In particular, they wish to show that America is at war with Muslims in order to radicalise young Muslims both at home and overseas. By suspending Habeas Corpus, we are playing into their hands and creating more would-be terrorists for the future. We should be warned by the UK precedent in Northern Ireland, where widespread internment without trial radicalised many Catholic youths in the 1970s and drove them into the arms of the IRA.
The events of September 11 constituted an unprecedented attack on American soil. The US government ...

The events of September 11 constituted an unprecedented attack on American soil. The US government must do everything in its power to ensure that the individuals responsible cannot participate in further terrorist activities. Restricting suspected terrorists’ rights to challenge their detentions is necessary to achieve that goal. Terror suspects still have recourse to military tribunals, which contain many of the same safeguards as the federal court system.
Global terrorism calls for aggressive responses. We cannot allow our nation to be besieged by terro...

Global terrorism calls for aggressive responses. We cannot allow our nation to be besieged by terrorists while we stand aside and do nothing. Our enemies are well aware of the legal framework in which the US authorities operate, and will exploit it wherever possible. Constitutional freedoms are extremely important, but the security and continued existence of our nation come first. America must make a stand and demonstrate that terrorism will not be tolerated.
There is a longstanding tradition of suspending Habeas Corpus protections during times of war and co...

There is a longstanding tradition of suspending Habeas Corpus protections during times of war and conflict. For example, President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Habeas was also suspended briefly during World War II, after the attacks on Pearl Harbour. 9/11 and other Al Qaeda plots against the United States and its citizens mean that we are engaged in just the same kind of conflict, and we must respond in just as determined a way. The war on terror may not follow the rules of traditional warfare, but it is a war nonetheless.
The hatred our enemies feel for America does not depend on details of our legal system. They hate u...

The hatred our enemies feel for America does not depend on details of our legal system. They hate us for our success in building a tolerant, democratic society at odds with their narrow vision of harsh conformity. They hate us for our willingness to stand up for our values abroad and protect our allies against violent extremists seeking to take over their states. Their propaganda seeks to radicalise young Muslims across the world not by arcane appeals to Habeas Corpus, but by twisted portrayals of American military actions against civilians in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia.
The events of September 11 constituted an unprecedented attack on American soil. The US government ...

There is no reason why the United States cannot uphold constitutional protections such as Habeas Corpus and effectively combat terrorism at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ensuring that suspected terrorists have access to Federal courts will save much-needed resources and ensure more accurate administration of justice. In the present case, it is unclear which of the Guantanamo detainees actually committed the acts that are used to justify their indefinite detention. Allowing detainees to challenge their detention would bring clarity to this uncertain situation and free up resources in the war against terrorism.