Former Prince Andrew suing TVP
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c689zl5eljdzo
Does he seriously think he can salvage his reputation at this point?
Does he seriously think he can salvage his reputation at this point?
the tribester said:
Quosh the warrants, prove the search was illegal, exclude the evidence found and seized during the search maybe.
I'm sure that's the gist of what he's trying to do, but why? Hoping to avoid prosecution should the full Epstein files ever come out? It's really not like his reputation is salvageable at this point (though he seems to resolutely refuse to accept that).
It will be interested to see what their challenges is with the search warrants. I used to work for TVP and applied for, and executed many warrants. The first is an application for the warrant which is authorised internally by an Inspector and then submitted to the court for review... this leads to an appointment (nowadays it's video rather than in-person). You are questioned a bit by magistrates and then authorised as long as it's all ok.
There is quite a lot of requirements and details you need to put on the application (similar to when you request electronic data or details from telephone companies).
As an example:
- Address (obvious but really important this is correct, things like flat number, post code etc...)
- Occupant details
- People that would be affected by the action
- How you know they live there and not somewhere else
- Impact to the person and proportionality - can't you just knock on the door... do you need to go there?
- what offences are you investigating and what's your evidence
- How can that evidence be linked to the person who lives there?
- what are you believing is in the premises that you want to search for - this has to be specific and relevant to the crime. As an example, if you're targetting a drug dealer, you cant put down "stolen electronics"
- if you do seize those items, what will you do with them - e.g. further analysis, fingerprinting, return to the rightful owner etc...
Would love to know what they're challenging. I can only imagine it's not a technicality in terlation to the legal side, but more to do with their initial suspicions and why they felt a warrant and such public action was justified.
There is quite a lot of requirements and details you need to put on the application (similar to when you request electronic data or details from telephone companies).
As an example:
- Address (obvious but really important this is correct, things like flat number, post code etc...)
- Occupant details
- People that would be affected by the action
- How you know they live there and not somewhere else
- Impact to the person and proportionality - can't you just knock on the door... do you need to go there?
- what offences are you investigating and what's your evidence
- How can that evidence be linked to the person who lives there?
- what are you believing is in the premises that you want to search for - this has to be specific and relevant to the crime. As an example, if you're targetting a drug dealer, you cant put down "stolen electronics"
- if you do seize those items, what will you do with them - e.g. further analysis, fingerprinting, return to the rightful owner etc...
Would love to know what they're challenging. I can only imagine it's not a technicality in terlation to the legal side, but more to do with their initial suspicions and why they felt a warrant and such public action was justified.
redrabbit29 said:
It will be interested to see what their challenges is with the search warrants. I used to work for TVP and applied for, and executed many warrants. The first is an application for the warrant which is authorised internally by an Inspector and then submitted to the court for review... this leads to an appointment (nowadays it's video rather than in-person). You are questioned a bit by magistrates and then authorised as long as it's all ok.
There is quite a lot of requirements and details you need to put on the application (similar to when you request electronic data or details from telephone companies).
As an example:
- Address (obvious but really important this is correct, things like flat number, post code etc...)
- Occupant details
- People that would be affected by the action
- How you know they live there and not somewhere else
- Impact to the person and proportionality - can't you just knock on the door... do you need to go there?
- what offences are you investigating and what's your evidence
- How can that evidence be linked to the person who lives there?
- what are you believing is in the premises that you want to search for - this has to be specific and relevant to the crime. As an example, if you're targetting a drug dealer, you cant put down "stolen electronics"
- if you do seize those items, what will you do with them - e.g. further analysis, fingerprinting, return to the rightful owner etc...
Would love to know what they're challenging. I can only imagine it's not a technicality in terlation to the legal side, but more to do with their initial suspicions and why they felt a warrant and such public action was justified.
Surely it's a Section 8 PACE warrant which must be applied for at and authorised by a court ? There is quite a lot of requirements and details you need to put on the application (similar to when you request electronic data or details from telephone companies).
As an example:
- Address (obvious but really important this is correct, things like flat number, post code etc...)
- Occupant details
- People that would be affected by the action
- How you know they live there and not somewhere else
- Impact to the person and proportionality - can't you just knock on the door... do you need to go there?
- what offences are you investigating and what's your evidence
- How can that evidence be linked to the person who lives there?
- what are you believing is in the premises that you want to search for - this has to be specific and relevant to the crime. As an example, if you're targetting a drug dealer, you cant put down "stolen electronics"
- if you do seize those items, what will you do with them - e.g. further analysis, fingerprinting, return to the rightful owner etc...
Would love to know what they're challenging. I can only imagine it's not a technicality in terlation to the legal side, but more to do with their initial suspicions and why they felt a warrant and such public action was justified.
They need to evidence serious crime for it, which is perhaps where the challenge lies ?
Earthdweller said:
Surely it's a Section 8 PACE warrant which must be applied for at and authorised by a court ?
They need to evidence serious crime for it, which is perhaps where the challenge lies ?
Oh yea, it will be a Section 8 warrant related to indictable (serious) offences. It will still have an application process and ultimately will be for a magistrate to authorise. They need to evidence serious crime for it, which is perhaps where the challenge lies ?
I have no idea on the challenge, but I am guessing that either:
1) The evidence of serious crime (as you mentioned)
2) The application process they used (really unlikely as they do S8 warrants all the time)
So maybe they think the whole premise of the warrant was flawed. SEems a real stretch based on what's come out recently. Plus if you add in there the public interest/severity of it all, then it would seem a really wild goose chase to me
cookie1600 said:
redrabbit29 said:
Seems a real stretch based on what's come out recently. Plus if you add in there the public interest/severity of it all, then it would seem a really wild goose chase to me
From the fella who thought he'd 'clear the air' with an interview with Emily Maitlis? 
redrabbit29 said:
Earthdweller said:
Surely it's a Section 8 PACE warrant which must be applied for at and authorised by a court ?
They need to evidence serious crime for it, which is perhaps where the challenge lies ?
Oh yea, it will be a Section 8 warrant related to indictable (serious) offences. It will still have an application process and ultimately will be for a magistrate to authorise. They need to evidence serious crime for it, which is perhaps where the challenge lies ?
I have no idea on the challenge, but I am guessing that either:
1) The evidence of serious crime (as you mentioned)
2) The application process they used (really unlikely as they do S8 warrants all the time)
So maybe they think the whole premise of the warrant was flawed. SEems a real stretch based on what's come out recently. Plus if you add in there the public interest/severity of it all, then it would seem a really wild goose chase to me
k does this nugget fund this legal sLet's just remind ourselves of the Sir Cliff Richard debacle.
The former Director of Public Prosecutions criticised the police force for their "completely disreputable conduct" and said their action could make the warrant unlawful. South Yorkshire Police later agreed to pay Richard £400,000 after settling a claim he brought against the force."
The former Director of Public Prosecutions criticised the police force for their "completely disreputable conduct" and said their action could make the warrant unlawful. South Yorkshire Police later agreed to pay Richard £400,000 after settling a claim he brought against the force."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff