Argument: Intercept evidence deals particularly well with cases of conspiracy and criminal gangs which have a widespread network.

Intercept evidence can be very useful for showing associations between groups of people [1] , which can be incredibly helpful in cases such as conspiracies to link people and events together. It can also expose inconsistencies or falsity in an individual’s alibi [2] or personal character if they deny contact with a certain party where intercept evidence proves that they had communicated [3] . However, under the status quo the defence lawyer may not be authorised to intercept evidence which would prove their client’s innocence [4] . Allowing such techniques would help to equalise the prosecution and defence; after all, the aim of court is not to blindly prosecute the defendant, but to ascertain whether he or she is in fact guilty before any prosecution occurs. Widening the array of tools which can be used by both prosecution and defence helps to encourage a wider view of the case and arrive at a more accurate verdict.

[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704889404576277341101995436.html , accessed 30/08/11

[2] http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/criminal-evidence/wiretap-legality.aspx , accessed 30/08/11

[3] http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/news/articles/criminal-evidence/wiretap-legality.aspx , accessed 30/08/11

[4] http://chicagoist.com/2011/04/14/blagojevich_live_presser.php , accessed 30/08/11

Candidate 1: "The controversy which surrounds intercept evidence is far-reaching and very complex.

This debate is not contained within the courtroom but also spans wider principles of legal justice and the rules which uphold democratic law. Even countries which currently allow this evidence, such as certain US states [1] , have noted that it can be difficult to use successfully and without violating past Acts and wider legal principles [2] . Bodies such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ argue that revealing the ‘evidence’ necessitates revealing how that evidence was garnered; as such, intercept evidence can compromise the security status of intelligence services and their techniques [3] . This kind of method should be reserved, if used at all, for singular, extreme cases such as terrorist activity where all other possibilities for collecting evidence have truly been exhausted. Finally, wiretapping and intercept evidence has been criticised or deemed illegitimate by many legal professionals [4] [5] . For this kind of evidence to be admissible in court, it needs to follow legal principles which have already been set up. There is little evidence that it can do so.

[1] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=416586 , accessed 30/08/11

[2] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/05.html , accessed 30/08/11

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/06/uk.ukcrime , accessed 30/08/11

[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081700650.html , accessed 30/08/11

[5] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/ns/us_news-security/t/feds-appeal-ruling-against-wiretap-program/ , accessed 30/08/11"
Candidate 2: "Common authorisation for wiretapping would result in misallocation of resources.

Wiretaps are not only unreliable, but incredibly expensive [1] [2] . Intelligence agents also often find themselves inadvertently listening in on ‘irrelevant, non-incriminating aspects of the target’s life’ [3] which not only breaches the privacy of innocent people but is an obvious waste of time and money for all involved. Given that many countries are considering or have cut their funding for police forces because of the recession [4] [5] [6] , this money could be put to a better use: preventing crime and terrorist activity by a stronger police presence.

[1] http://www.tscm.com/wiretaprobin.html , accessed 30/08/11

[2] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03/fbis-500-millio/ , accessed 30/08/11

[3] http://cdt.org/wiretap/wiretap_overview.html , accessed 30/08/11

[4] In the UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/11/nick-clegg-police-funding-cuts-riots , accessed 30/08/11

[5] In the USA: http://www.businessinsider.com/newark-carjackings-2011-1 , accessed 30/08/11

[6] In New Zealand: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1104/S00010/cuts-to-police-budget-endanger-progress.htm , accessed 30/08/11"
Candidate 3: "The more obvious solution to this problem (from the opposition’s view) would be to maintain a clear policy where no intercept evidence is admissible in court. However, this particular case becomes an anomaly for good reason. Individual countries – in this case Britain – cannot dictate whether foreign intelligence services – the Dutch – choose to reveal their intelligence-gathering methods or not. In this case, the crossover between national policies on information intelligence [1] led to this anomaly.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/sep/08/ukcrime1 , accessed 30/08/11"
Candidate 4: "Intercept evidence is simply not reliable enough to be effective evidence in court.

Wiretap evidence is not as reliable as other forms of evidence which we currently have at our disposal, such as DNA evidence which has ‘sent thousands of people to prison and . . . has played a vital role in exonerating men who were falsely convicted’ [1] . Many potential aspects of intercept evidence lack this reliability. Voice analysis, for example, has been shown to be unreliable in exploring messages supposedly spoken by Osama Bin Laden [2] . Video intercept evidence notably failed when a video which purported to show Morgan Tsvangirai (the Zimbabwean opposition leader) conspiring against the government, when in fact he was somewhere else at the time [3] . The poor quality of intercept evidence is a threat within an individual trial, but also more widely; reliance on intercept evidence by prosecutors might lead to more cases collapsing after the evidence is proved unreliable, and wasting time and money for all involved.

[1] http://www.bioforensics.com/articles/champion1/champion1.html , accessed 30/08/11

[2] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/13/tech/main529273.shtml , accessed 30/08/11

[3] http://www.swradioafrica.com/Documents/TheStateversusMorganTsvangirai.htm , accessed 30/08/11"
Candidate 5: "For every expert who advocates the use of intercept evidence there is another who fiercely warns against it, particularly those who are experts in law [1] . Despite the use of wiretapping in the USA, many people advocate against intercept evidence by pointing out its past failures [2] and questionable authorisation [3] [4] . In the UK, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have voiced concerns that wire-tapping would expose the methods used by intelligence services [5] . This is not purely a debate about whether wire-tapping works, but whether it is in line with the legal principles held by those countries and states who currently do not allow it to be used in court. Just because it could be used does not make it legitimate – in fact, there is often heavy criticism against wiretapping within the legal profession itself [6] [7] .

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081700650.html , accessed 30/08/11

[2] http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/Wiretap-evidence-fails-in-New-York-drug-case-against-Jamaican_8024001 , accessed 30/08/11

[3] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11027207/ns/politics/t/sen-clinton-criticizes-bush-wiretap-rationale/ , accessed 30/08/11

[4] http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=1420233 , accessed 30/08/11

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/06/uk.ukcrime , accessed 30/08/11

[6] http://fortunaty.net/org/wikileaks/CRS/wikileaks-crs-reports/98-251.pdf , accessed 30/08/11

[7] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/ns/us_news-security/t/feds-appeal-ruling-against-wiretap-program/ , accessed 30/08/11"
Candidate 6: "If the use of wiretapping and intercept evidence was as simple as proposition makes out, undoubtedly it would be a common tool. However, there are also serious flaws in how this intelligence is gathered and interpreted. For example, a phone call might seem unduly incriminating when taken out of context and heard in a court of law which has already projected suspicions upon a particular individual [1] . Focusing only on one form of communications as is normal when authorisation is given for these interceptions fails to take in the wider picture and continues to be heard without the context [2] . Whether this unfairly incriminates somebody who has not acted in a crime, or falsely ‘proves’ the innocence of somebody who is not in fact innocent, intercept evidence is limited in its scope and as such should not be admissible in court.

[1] http://www.fiercefinance.com/story/rajaratnam-jury-listens-more-wiretaps/2011-04-28 , accessed 30/08/11

[2] http://www.fiercefinance.com/story/rajaratnam-jury-listens-more-wiretaps/2011-04-28 , accessed 30/08/11"
Candidate 7: "While intercept evidence may well show links between people, it does not necessarily accurately show what they were doing. In this way, intercepts make good intelligence, but poor evidence. There is no guarantee that intercept evidence will ‘prove’ anything in court rather than simply creating unfounded implications which could actually serve to confuse, rather than clear, the case in question. Until intercept intelligence can prove itself reliable enough to be routinely used as genuine evidence – and it is unclear that it ever will [1] – it certainly should not become an established part of the wider legal system.

[1] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n06/conor-gearty/short-cuts , accessed 30/08/11"
Candidate 8: "Wiretapping can actually threaten the success of intelligence services in preventing crime and helping to prove criminals guilty.

Regular use of wiretap and intercept evidence poses a danger to the evidence-gathering capabilities of intelligence agencies. There are concerns among experts that terrorists, far from being apprehended, will simply learn new techniques for ‘listening in to calls made over the internet’ [1] and know exactly who and what the intelligence services are monitoring. In this way, they could actually evade intelligence services and the police by using different forms of communication, such as encrypting messages or using disposable mobile phones. Revealing the capabilities of our intelligence agencies could create harms which far outweigh any potential benefits of intercept evidence [2] . This makes intercept evidence self-negating; if it is used, the very revelation of its use will alert criminals to it and make it vulnerable to manipulation and tampering – therefore, the evidence actually becomes less reliable and less effective [3] . Ultimately, it does not provide a tangible benefit.

[1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2806756.ece , accessed 30/08/11

[2] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2806756.ece , accessed 30/08/11

[3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2806756.ece , accessed 30/08/11"

While intercept evidence may well show links between people, it does not necessarily accurately show what they were doing. In this way, intercepts make good intelligence, but poor evidence. There is no guarantee that intercept evidence will ‘prove’ anything in court rather than simply creating unfounded implications which could actually serve to confuse, rather than clear, the case in question. Until intercept intelligence can prove itself reliable enough to be routinely used as genuine evidence – and it is unclear that it ever will [1] – it certainly should not become an established part of the wider legal system.

[1] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n06/conor-gearty/short-cuts , accessed 30/08/11
