• Before posting anything about COVID-19, READ THIS FIRST! COVID-19 and Misinformation (UPDATED)
    Misinformation and/or conspiracy theories about this topic, even if intended as humor, will not be tolerated!

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
8,794
Times were when a journo could write maybe too much, and not be investigated.

The High Court has just clipped their wings, too much in my view. A source is a source, and many stories would never see the light of day if an informant didn't expect his story to be anonymous as well as double checked.

So what is the fair dividing line, or should the courts look at such claims on a case by case basis?



Emmett Corcoran, the editor of the Strokestown Democrat, along with the owners of the paper, brought legal proceedings challenging the seizure of his mobile phone by gardaí investigating events at a farmhouse at Falsk, near Strokestown on 16 December 2018.
 

-V-Aeneid

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
28
The question, to my mind, is whether the laws regarding the law enforcement seizing a mobile phone are also the same laws that allow law enforcement to seize your mail?

Well, another question that comes to mind is whether this is a first High Court ruling on such a matter of law?
 

redneck

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
8,634
Journalist's have not covered themselves in too much glory recently. That said, I would also be concerned about freedom of the press.
 

artfoley56

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
10,258
We don't have anyone in the media worthy of the title journalist. They're either compromised, opinion piece writers or bought and paid for.

We haven't had a decent journo since Veronica guerin
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
8,794
The question, to my mind, is whether the laws regarding the law enforcement seizing a mobile phone are also the same laws that allow law enforcement to seize your mail?

Well, another question that comes to mind is whether this is a first High Court ruling on such a matter of law?

I think it is the first about a journo's mobile. Which is a tool of his trade, if you think about it.

The further problem is how long the gardi can access a device. I've heard of cases where the phone is never seen again. Seemingly you have to get a receipt off the gardi, and who is thinking of that at 3am?
 

-V-Aeneid

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2020
Messages
28
I trust that even a journalist with average ability to use his/her brain would be thinking about some documentation, like a receipt, no matter what the circumstances or time of day, unless they were hurt.

But something else just hit me about 30 minutes ago while I was doing some other work, and it is something I have never considered before, nor have seen covered in any article or such when we discuss the confiscating of a computer or phone or any device holding information such as that phone would have had.

What about the rights of people who might have made calls to that phone and are in no way connected with the reason the law enforcement folks confiscated the phone?

Even the records of anyone having made a call to that phone and are not at all involved in the case for why the phone was confiscated should be considered private information, yes?

So how are the non-participants protected from some stranger, law enforcement or not, --- protected from some stranger viewing information about that non-participant having made that call? Or any call?

What about text messages? Are strangers allowed by law to view text messages of anyone?

And as I type these questions and start allowing my brain to focus on this I am beginning to smell something bad! I do not care what your job is --- you should not be allowed to read my text message to anyone if I am not under investigation. There must be some law that protects me in something like that.

So any court official, or investigator, that reads my text message is breaking that law.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
36,634
Twitter
No
It would be arguable that it would be inadmissable because it wasn't relevant information to the investigation. Otherwise every dealer caught with their mobile phone and its record of calls and customers they'd all be getting visits based on the number and frequency of calls to the dealer.

Never heard of a prosecution resulting from something like that so I suspect there is a challenge available to use of the info on a 'fishing trip'. After all, you could just be a mate seeing if the dealer was going out socially unless there are texts explicitly referring to purchase or sale of product.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom