Is there a case for investigative journalism?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph....-man-John-Darwin.html

Are there times when tapping into Emails and Telephones can be seen as permissible, if they are deemed to be in the public interest?

[Gromit]

Please explain how knowing about an insurance fraud by an a member of the public is in the public interest. There must be tens of thousands of insurance frauds every year.

The public interest justification is not valid.

The more pertinent question is why, when Sky told the police it had committed a crime by hacking Mrs Canoeman's computer, did the not investigate or prosecute them. The grubby relationship between Murdoch and the Police is a cancer which fortunately has been discovered just in time.

[Gromit]

In answer toyour question.

Investigative journalists should always work within the law. If they act illegally but find lawbreaking then we are in a very grey area. Newspaper owners and broadcaster should be prosecuted for permitting illegal techniques.

Back to Canoewoman. If Sky are correct that information they supplied which was obtained illegally led to her prosecution and conviction, then she could appeal against conviction. I am sure her lawyers are checking if any SKY evidence was used in court.

Meanwhile AOG, I have just hacked your computer and found you have been illegally copying copyrighted music (vinyl LPs into mp3 files). Sorry for the invasion of your privacy, but it was in the public interest.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

***Please explain how knowing about an insurance fraud by an a member of the public is in the public interest.***

/// The police described material supplied by Sky News as pivotal to the case. Mrs Darwin received a jail sentence of six and a half years. More than £500,000 of assets have since been recovered and funds returned to the insurance companies and pension funds which were victims of the fraud. ///

Obviously it was in some of the public's interest.

The rest of this Telegraph item, explains it all much better than I could possibly do, especially regarding the politicians expenses.

http://www.telegraph....in-email-hacking.html

[Gromit]

I hope it wasn't "pivotal" if it was obtained illegally.

That would make the evidence inadmissable and the conviction unsafe. A costly retrial or even compensation could result.

[anotheoldgit]

If by 'illegally' obtaining email or text messages setting out a planned major assassination or terrorist attack, and a newspaper was able to lead the authorities to the instigators and so prevent the attack.

Are you then actually saying that the newspaper should then be charged for obtaining the vital information illegally?

[THECORBYLOON]

Do you not think that assassination and terrorism are a WEE bit different from one man's insurance fraud?

[Gromit]

There is a difference between obtaining information and using it to prevent a crime, and using it to sell your newspaper or news channel.

I have my doubts about how pivotal SKY's information was. I would assume the police would have been examing her emails legally. The Police have not confirmed SKY's information was useful to them.

[FredPuli43]

It does not follow that evidence which is not, in itself, admissible, cannot lead to a proper conviction. If the police find evidence because of hearsay, that evidence may yet be admitted though the hearsay itself would not be. If a paper tells the police that they have got information by tapping a phone and the police go to the suspect and interview him or her, or find incriminating evidence as a resut of that information, it does not follow that the court will automatically exclude the evidence found.After all, if the source did not reveal how or why he knows or believes what he says ("I've heard rumours", "There's a story going around ") that would result in the standard police evidence "acting on information received, we went to.."which defence counsel unfortunately hear all the time in court, and which is never queried (largely because doing so invites the admission of very dangerous hearsay; "his wife told us", "a well-known criminal told us he knew")

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

Sky never reported on it, until after the trial.

/// None of the material obtained was broadcast prior to the conviction and our coverage made clear that we had discovered and supplied emails to the police. ///

[anotheoldgit]

THECORBYLOON

/// Do you not think that assassination and terrorism are a WEE bit different from one man's insurance fraud? ///

So what are you then saying, you are breaking the law if you 'phone jack' on some issues but not on others?

Incidentally it was Mrs Darwin who was convicted of fraud.

[rojash]

"Are there times when tapping into Emails and Telephones can be seen as permissible, if they are deemed to be in the public interest?"

Simply put: NO. There are public interest defences available for many "dodgy" practices, but the Computer Misuse Act specifically states there is no public interest defence available.

FredPuli43, you are confusing evidence which is not admissible because it may not be confirmed (e.g. hearsay) with evidence which is inadmissible because it was obtained illegally.

In this particular case there was no excuse (or even reason) for the reporter to hack e-mails. Once he had the (legally obtained) information as to the addresses, he could have passed those to the police, who could then have obtained a warrant, and legally accessed the accounts, but he didn't, he hacked the accounts himself.

[THECORBYLOON]

“If by 'illegally' obtaining email or text messages setting out a planned major assassination or terrorist attack, and a newspaper was able to lead the authorities to the instigators and so prevent the attack.

Are you then actually saying that the newspaper should then be charged for obtaining the vital information illegally?”

If a newspaper hacked a computer or intercepted texts or ‘phone calls because they suspected an assassination attempt or an act of terrorism, would folk not be asking why they did that rather than immediately pass the details on to the police?

“So what are you then saying, you are breaking the law if you 'phone jack' on some issues but not on others?”

With regard to newspapers illegally accessing information, this is being considered by the Met Police and the Leveson inquiry and no doubt all those involved have or will say it was done in the public interest,

[grffindoor2011]

Aaaaah, phone hacking. I do not believe phone hacking is a crime if it is done so by journalists. Had the Dowler incident resulted in catching that creep earlier, no-one would have said anything.

My big issue with the whole saga are the high payments awarded to 'victims'. A few thousand to shut them up will suffice not life changing money that makes it worth while.

It's interesting though that as the ongoing and laborious story of hacking continues, the government think it ok to eavesdrop into anything any member of the public does by email/internet.

Not ok to listen to dead girls mobile and that of B list celebrities but ok to listen and record the rest of us. Yeh right.

We need a new Government. A peoples Government run by us and not by those only in it for themselves (ie LIB/LAB/CON).

[anotheoldgit]

THECORBYLOON

/// If a newspaper hacked a computer or intercepted texts or ‘phone calls because they suspected an assassination attempt or an act of terrorism, would folk not be asking why they did that rather than immediately pass the details on to the police? ///

It's called proof of their allegations.

[THECORBYLOON]

anotheoldgit, if I had information about a planned assassination or a terrorist incident, should I dial 999 or 'phone the Daily Mail?