Londoner jailed after refusing to unlock his mobile phones

A London man has been jailed for almost six years after being caught with two illegally held revolvers – and refusing to reveal to police the PINs for his mobile phones. Twenty-nine-year-old Marvin Jones, of Tyneham Close, Clapham, was sentenced to five years and six months in prison for possessing the two revolvers, a Smith …

[wolfetone]

*reads headline*

"WHAT? That's scandelous! How dare they..."

*reads sub-headline*

"Ohhhh."

[Adam 1]

Shirley you are not suggesting an element of click bait....

[VBF]

EXACTLY my thought!

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

How long for theft?

If he had claimed the phones were stolen and he couldn't unlock them - would that work?

[Dabooka]

Re: How long for theft?

I guess they'd have to try and prove calls texts had recently been received or made to quell that argument

[Lee D]

Re: How long for theft?

It wouldn't be hard to get cell records for any phone, and prove that they were being used by him and thus he must have had the passcode (stolen or not).

And then you'd just charge him with theft of a phone, failing to disclose his passcode AND obstruction of justice (why is this not the charge for failing to disclose the passcode anyway?).

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: How long for theft?

"obstruction of justice (why is this not the charge for failing to disclose the passcode anyway?)."

IANAL but maybe possible self-incrimination could be grounds for challenging obstruction, hence the need to create a separate offence. At some point this seems likely to go to the ECHR. An accompanying charge of possession of two firearms isn't the best case to take to the ECHR, however.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: How long for theft?

Which is why they have been careful to only use it for child porn/terrorism etc up to now. You build up a set of case law showing how necessary it is in order to prosecute these evil etc etc - then you can use it on people who put their bins out on the wrong day or complain about about councillor's expenses

[Tom 7]

Re: How long for theft? self-incrimination ...

Presumably to prove you are going to self-incriminate yourself you'd have to unlock the phone!

[Adam 52]

Re: How long for theft?

The argument is that they key is a thing, just like a physical key, accounting leger or video tape, and can be demanded just like those physical items can without interfering with the right to a fair trial.

It's an arguable point though because a password that's not written down *might* not be a thing until it is verbalised.

So there's all sorts of scope for, say, a usb containing a key to be demanded but a biometric not. Or even a fingerprint or iris biometric to be demanded but a voiceprint not.

See UK vs Saunders and some waffle in Hansard.

[Adam 1]

Re: How long for theft?

Truecrypt used to have a plausible deniability feature whereby a secondary pass code would unlock a second volume. The actual volume would not be detectable from within this volume.

Seems like something similar for android/iPhone is needed.

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Re: How long for theft?

"Truecrypt used to have a plausible deniability "

'used to have' being the operative phrase here, because there are ways to detect it. I believe there are things that can be done to reduce those chances of detection, but at that point you're practically taking up witchcraft :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: How long for theft?

Witchcraft? ask George Smiley about that?

[herman]

Re: How long for theft?

Brilliant!

I'm sure going to jail for theft of two phones will be less than 5 years, unless maybe if there are shared music files on them...

[Dabooka]

That last para-sentence

hurt my brain, and I'm still not sure what I read.

Luckily I've read the relevant articles so know what it is on about.

[Adam 1]

Re: That last para-sentence

The linked article mentions a hearing date in the past week or so. Would be interesting to have an update to that case.

[codejunky]

Hmm

Guns in the UK! Never! Has he not heard the law bans them?

[Slartybardfast]

Re: Hmm

"Guns in the UK! Never! Has he not heard the law bans them?"

Strange comment. Yes, I guess he certainly knows now, having been given 5 1/2 years for owning them.

[codejunky]

Re: Hmm

@ Slartybardfast

"Strange comment."

In what way? Guns are mostly banned with strict laws on ownership which is typically considered the solution to most news stories involving guns. Except this one where the criminal is armed with 2 guns in a heavily regulated country.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

No one ever claimed that making most types of firearms illegal makes it impossible for criminals to get hold of firearms, but it makes it more difficult. The statistics are absolutely clear that countries with few guns have a much lower rate of gun deaths (duh!). And this guy got busted for possessing these guns presumably before he had the chance to use them for criminal purposes, so I'd say that's the system working right there.

[codejunky]

Re: Hmm

@AC

"No one ever claimed that making most types of firearms illegal makes it impossible for criminals to get hold of firearms, but it makes it more difficult."

Well said. Except they seem able to get enough to shoot each other in London and Manchester gang wars. Some of these attacks in daylight too.

"The statistics are absolutely clear that countries with few guns have a much lower rate of gun deaths (duh!)."

However the stats are less rosy for violent crime. For the US particularly there seems an opposite correlation.

"And this guy got busted for possessing these guns presumably before he had the chance to use them for criminal purposes, so I'd say that's the system working right there."

Are you sure? How do you know he didnt use them? Of course by use there is discharging the gun and of course the presence of a gun which are both the use of a gun (as would be letting off a few rounds shooting cans).

I dont disagree with the cops nabbing him for his illegal guns, it is interesting how many of these things are around considering they are effectively banned. So banned that the Olympics need special permission yet criminals have them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

"However the stats are less rosy for violent crime. For the US particularly there seems an opposite correlation."

It would be interesting to see your evidence for that conclusion.

Incidentally, don't compare US and UK rates for violent crime without pointing out that the US statistics basically start at GBH and rape and work up, whereas the UK statistics include everything from threatening behaviour upwards. They cannot be directly compared.

[Dan Paul]

Re: Hmm

Funny you should say that. As Gun Ownership increases, overall crime has decreased.

Maybe, if the liberals darling project Obamacare provided ANY mental health benefits then the roughly 20,00 suicides by gunshot might not happen (Half of all shootings in the US are suicides)

READ THESE FACTS BEFORE YOU CONTINUE OTHER LIES

Here are some very Interesting Facts About Gun Control:

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016.

Do the math: 0.0000925% of the population die from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant!)

What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws

• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified

• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons

• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100.

Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation - or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others.

For example, California had 1,169 - and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California of course but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault - all are done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?

• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose – THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

· 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths

• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:

• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical malpractice. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers!

So what is the point? If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in malpractice would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ....... Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple. Taking away guns gives control to governments.

This is not conspiracy theory; this is a historical fact. Why is it impossible for the government to spill over into dictatorship?

Why did the Japanese not even attempt to attack California in WWII? Because as they put it, there is a gun behind every blade of grass.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

The fundamental cognitive dissonance is that Americans have lots of guns, yet still lost literally all their civil rights.

The only right you have left is gun ownership

[Marshalltown]

Re: Hmm

"The fundamental cognitive dissonance is that Americans have lots of guns, yet still lost literally all their civil rights."

That reflects US views, but they rarely understand just how constrained humanity in the rest of the planet is.. Compared with other parts of the world, including some regarded as highly enlightened parts, the individual US citizen is well off as regards "rights' such as free speech, weapons, access to courts, presumed innocence, etc. The "rights" the US falls short on are more typically health, retirement, and other more "social" "rights." Your typical US citizen is deathly afraid of taxes and envisions themselves as only a tiny distance away from Trump and the Waltons, mistaken as that is, not quite grasping that someone like Trump OWNS the legistlators that pass the laws taxing the little guys and protecting individual people with the wealth of small nations..

[EvadingGrid]

Re: Hmm

Having lived and worked in both countries, it depends exactly on who you are, and what you wish to do, as to which country has more freedom. It also depends on where you live, Glasgow can be a lot more dangerous than a rural town in a fly-over state. Get sick, loose your job and america can be one big prison. It really depends on individual circumstances. The thing both countries have in common, is that Freedom is under constant attack by a campaigning elite using proxies.

[albaleo]

Re: Hmm

"There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016.

Do the math: 0.0000925% of the population die from gun related actions each year."

I think you should start again, and do the "math" properly this time.

[Steven Jones]

Re: Hmm

"There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016.

Do the math: 0.0000925% of the population die from gun related actions each year."

I did, and it's 0.00925%. When you turn a decimal factor into a percentage remember to factor in the 100...

[AlexS]

Re: Hmm

@Dan Paul With guns, more kids and toddlers kill people by accident than terrorists do on purpose. Gun crime on US soil 30 times bigger than UK as a percentage of the population. Oh and it says on the 2nd amendment guns should be well regulated. Excuses excuses.

[FrankAlphaXII]

Re: Hmm

>>"Oh and it says on the 2nd amendment guns should be well regulated. Excuses excuses".

No, it does not. Sorry, Try again.

It says the Militia should be well regulated. It is. There are a set of laws under Titles 10 and 32 which exist to regulate the Militia. Therefore it is reasonable to state that the Militia is well regulated.

2nd Amendment text:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And before you start the usual unthinking Liberal argument about "The Militia is the National Guard, durr hurr hurr", you may want to get a glimpse of what the Militia is in US Law. I'll help since you seem to be pretty oblivious to the law. Hint: It is not just the National Guard.

10 U.S.C. § 311 - Militia: composition and classes:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

And just in case you think there's something supporting your ignorance in 32 U.S.C. 313, I'll spell that one out for you too.

32 U.S.C § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations:

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—

(1) be a citizen of the United States; and

(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

So, you were saying?

[kain preacher]

Re: Hmm

Um you need only be a a legal resident to serve in any branch of the military, and yes the national guard is consider a branch of the military, You need to be a US citizen for classified post.

[Jaybus]

Re: Hmm

"Oh and it says on the 2nd amendment guns should be well regulated."

No. It doesn't. It says "well regulated militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It does not say the right of the militia. It does not say the right of the states. It definitely says the right of the people. "The people" is used throughout the Constitution to specify rights granted to an individual. The 10th amendment makes this point very clear. At least, that is what the US Supreme Court has ruled.

[gnasher729]

Re: Hmm

"• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws"

Absolutely wrong. If you look at US statistics, women have more suicide attempts than men. However, men tend to use guns much more often than women, and suicide attempts using guns turn very often into suicides. As a result, men commit more suicides then women (the number of unsuccessful attempts is lower).

There would definitely be fewer suicides among men if they had no access to firearms.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: gnasher729 Re: Hmm

"....women have more suicide attempts than men...." So you could argue that women are more likely to stage an attempt to gain attention, whereas men are just more interested in ending it.

".....There would definitely be fewer suicides among men if they had no access to firearms." Complete rubbish as you cannot show that men would not choose an alternative but equally effective means of suicide. For example, the majority of suicides where people jumps off bridges into traffic are men, presumably because women don't like the idea of smashing their bodies. Women tend to use pills, where there is a much greater chance of being interrupted or the attempt failing. Simply removing firearms will not magically remove the suicidal impulse from men nor women so inclined, so you are talking out of your arse.

[JimC]

Re: gnasher729 Hmm

> Complete rubbish as you cannot show that men would not choose an alternative but

> equally effective means of suicide.

Here's some research on attempted suicide by Paracetamol. http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/resparacet.html

It does appear that making it mildly inconvenient to buy large doses of paracetamol has led to a significant reduction in the suicide rate. I'm not sure whether this is a cheerful statistic or, for what it tells us about people, a depressing one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

>So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100.

Aside from the obvious issues with your arithmetic - I dipped into the headline stat first - the FBI are under the impression that there were 8,583 murders by firearm (though also note that Florida/Alabama have not provided data so its actually higher). Where do your stats come from?

[Rich 11]

Re: Hmm

As Gun Ownership increases, overall crime has decreased.

Correlation does not equal causation. Overall crime has decreased in many Western countries over the last 25 years; most have not seen a corresponding increase in gun ownership. In the UK, for example, gun ownership has fallen during that period.

[Sorry that handle is already taken.]

Re: Hmm

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws

The stupid, it burns.

[The First Dave]

Re: Hmm

@Dan: "65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws"

Around 99% of those suicides _would_ have been prevented if there was no access to guns - no other method is quite as simple - throwing yourself off a cliff is actually _really_ hard to do, as is poisoning yourself, to pick the two most obvious alternatives.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

Do I want to live in a place where people who want to commit suicide can't? If all someone wants to do is commit suicide and they can't so they take it out on everyone else is that a good thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

No not at all. For a start, not everyone who wants to commit suicide would take the alternative of "[taking] it out on everyone else".

The solution for people who want to commit suicide is to help them through the shitty situation or mental disability that has lead them to believe that their life is not worth living.

The solution to depression and mental disability, is not down the barrel of a gun(or anything else that you can kill yourself with). The less ways you can top yourself surely gives carers more chance to help.

More on point, guns are just plain stupid, as are all weapons of death.

Even more on point, If the police asked to see my phone, I probably wouldn't let them, unless they have a damn good reason. I have nothing to hide, and they have nothing to suspect.

[SEDT]

Re: Hmm

There's lies, damn lies, and then statistics.

Then there's Man-Maths

And finally, The gun lovin lobby.

Thank you for your perfect illustration of all the above, plus some fantastic inventions of your own

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws

Suicide using a Gun should not be recorded as a gun crime; afterall isn't suicide lawful particularly if successful - ever hear of a successful suicide being prosecuted? And the olden days way of procecutring attempted suicides never did seem to be all that reasonable, against religious laws though.

And yes, Gun control does prevent gun related suicides, because if you can't easily (stress easily) get a gun you will obviously use another method

• Why did the Japanese not even attempt to attack California in WWII? Because as they put it, there is a gun behind every blade of grass.

WRT the Japenese not invading California - well if they could have used the nuclear option they they might have done so, afterall is that not what the USA did and for a similar reason

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Lostyearsago Re: Hmm

"......ever hear of a successful suicide being prosecuted?....." Not the suicidee, but there have been cases where those that might have helped the suicidee gain access to the method of suicide (especially medical help) have been charged with assisting suicides.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm - @Dan Paul

I'm not disputing your statistics, but I do slightly disagree with some of the inferences you draw.

First, suicide. There is evidence that suicide is primarily an impulsive gesture, and that guns make it very easy to commit suicide on an impulse. People who take overdoses often survive.

Secondly, the Japanese. A quick look at the map shows that the guns in California were nothing to do with it, it was the logistics - the Japanese simply couldn't have got a significant army there. It was a couple of thousand miles from the Aleutians to the US, and neither the Japanese nor the US could rapidly raise a large force to get to the Aleutians.

As for Noah Webster, he lived in a world of primitive artillery and hand guns. If he had been presented with a state armed with helicopter gunships, nuclear weapons, MBTs, thermobaric bombs, cluster bombs and the power to intcercept most communications, he would have realised the limits of an armed citizenry.

It isn't gun ownership in the US that worries me; it's gun fetishisation and the NRA. If there was an NKA promoting knife ownership and advocating that everybody carry hunting knives for self defence, would it attract the same funding and get the same lobbying power?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

@ Voyna i Mor

"It would be interesting to see your evidence for that conclusion."

It is based on published figures from the FBI. I don't have the link immediately to hand but it shows that gun ownership has approx. doubled in the States over the past 10 years, and over the same period violent crime has approx. halved.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

"It is based on published figures from the FBI. I don't have the link immediately to hand but it shows that gun ownership has approx. doubled in the States over the past 10 years, and over the same period violent crime has approx. halved."

Gun ownership 1972-2104

From that report:

"The household ownership of firearms has declined in recent decades. Table 1 (left side) shows that the 31.0% of households reported having a firearm in 2014, essentially tying with 2010 for the lowest level of gun ownership in the last 40-some years. This is a decline of about 17 percentage points from the peak ownership years in 1977-1980"

"Table 2 shows that in 2014 22.4% of adults personally owned a firearm. This is up slightly from a record low of 20.6% in 2010. There has been little change from 2006 to 2014. Personal ownership in 2014 is down 8.1 percentage points from a high of 30.5% in 1985."

The FBI statistics take only seconds to find:

Spreadsheet

They show a violent crime reduction overall of 12.2% between 2003 and 2012.

I have to end this post to repair my bullshit detector, but far from your doubling/halving the true statistics appear to be a drop in gun ownership by household, and a faster reduction in violent crime. Perhaps you could find the statistics that you've conveniently mislaid?

[Marshalltown]

Re: Hmm

Once upon a time any free, property-owning man - sorry ladies but that was before suffrage - in England was literally required by law to own a weapon. It was considered essential to national defense and public order. As you track the history of British weapons regulations it becomes truly astonishing how ineffective those laws have been at limiting crime. The only weapons-related "crime" that the laws have probably truly reduced is suicide by firearm, which is BTW the commonest cause of firearms related deaths by an order of magnitude in the US. Based on available statistics there are several times as many crimes committed using firearms now than when the major laws were enacted. That is i part due to population changes, but only in part. Trawling through case law reveals that an individual defending themselves - especially with a weapon - is far more likely to receive harsh punishment under the law than an individual injured by a home defender during an actual criminal act.

This leads to the notion that there is "justice" - he was my only son, he was just trying to make a living even if he was a burglar! He was just supporting his poor old mother! Now how can afford my cigs?" As opposed to "justice," "hmmm, you say you are a carpet layer, and that those carpet knives are just the tools of your trade. Yet you left one in plain view to the great distress of all with aichmophobia who viewed it. I find that highly unlikely - five years. I hope you will learn to be more considerate of the feelings of others."

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

Er, no. Even if you exclude suicides, so "intentional homicide" the rate in the USA is _much_ higher than other developed nations. It's really not surprising: guns are _really_ good for killing people. Make it child's play. Sometimes literally.

[strum]

Re: Hmm

>Based on available statistics there are several times as many crimes committed using firearms now than when the major laws were enacted.

I would like to see some evidence to support this assertion. Gun crime is now a relative rarity. Armed robbery, for instance, has virtually disappeared from the court roster.

[gazthejourno]

Re: Re: Hmm

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/560/media/images/62993000/gif/_62993691_firearms_offences_624gr.gif

[Matt Bryant]

Re: strum Re: Hmm

"....Gun crime is now a relative rarity...." Yeah, only those really, really serious criminal types are using guns on the UK - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-36932197

Violent crime is rising in the UK again - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/21/england-wales-homicides-rise-knife-gun-crime

[Timmy B]

Re: Hmm

"The statistics are absolutely clear that countries with few guns have a much lower rate of gun deaths (duh!)"

Nope. Honduras is highest in deaths and way down the list in ownership. Switzerland is the opposite. The statistics are not clear at all and gun deaths are more to do with the overall socioeconomic situation in countries.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Timmy B Re: Hmm

".....Honduras is highest in deaths and way down the list in ownership. Switzerland is the opposite...." The insistence that higher gun-ownership must equal higher gun-crime doesn't even hold water in the US. The state of Wisonsin has some of the least restrictive gun laws and one of the highest levels of gun-ownership in the US, but also is one of the states with the lowest gun-crime. If the anti-gun crowd's mantra that "guns=murder" is true then Wisconsin would have massively higher gun-crime rates than New York State, which has very restrictive gun laws. Yet, when faced with the Wisonsin case, the anti-gun crowd simply deny the facts.

"....The statistics are not clear at all and gun deaths are more to do with the overall socioeconomic situation in countries." Indeed, you might come to the conclusion that criminalising gun-ownership was simply a means by which some politicians can dodge dealing with PC-sensitive issues.....

[AlexS]

Re: Hmm

Pull back. Nothing to see. Just another Republican freak who's forgotten to read that bit that says "well regulated" in his 2nd amendment.

[Big Ed]

Re: Hmm

@Slartybardfast, it's a US thing.

In the states, the gun control advocates' thesis is that more gun control laws will prevent gun violence.

So everytime a gun crime happens in strict gun control places, the gun rights advocates reference the incident and say "see, gun crimes happen regardless of control".

[Haku]

Re: Hmm

I have an unregistered gun.

It runs on 4x AA batteries and squirts out hot glue...

[Zot]

Re: Hmm

"I have an unregistered gun.

It runs on 4x AA batteries and squirts out hot glue..."

oooOOoo matron!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

Mine squirts grease

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

> Guns in the UK! Never! Has he not heard the law bans them?

Oddly I believe it's still perfectly legal to own a revolver, so long as it's black powder. However I can see how that might not be quite as gangsta as a 44 magnum...

I don't think there is an upper limit to the size of firearms either, I think it's perfectly acceptable to have some monster 20mm anti-materiel rifle so long as it's bolt action and it's shooting bog standard fmj.

I am sure you could have a smooth bore 120mm tank gun on a shotgun licence also.

[Fibbles]

Re: Hmm

Antique guns are perfectly legal in the UK though the definition of 'antique' is vague. The police usually go with anything pre WWII. Ammunition for these guns requires a licence though.

[Trigonoceps occipitalis]

Re: Hmm

Antique firearms are generally license free. However a special dispensation was made for the 9mm parabellum Luger. Ammunition for this gun is readily available albeit that a small modification is needed to fire modern ammunition safely - a standard gun will certainly fire the modern ammunition though. A Luger needs a license to be held.

Antique and collectors categorization seems to be set by the availability, or rather unavailability, of suitable ammunition.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

"I am sure you could have a smooth bore 120mm tank gun on a shotgun licence also."

Even now someone in the US is probably trying to work out how to do concealed carry on an M1A1 Abrams.

[BernardL]

Re: Hmm

"Even now someone in the US is probably trying to work out how to do concealed carry on an M1A1 Abrams."

Easy. Put it inside a TARDIS.

However, since the engine is a gas turbine, you'll have to be careful with the exhaust gases. They're very hot indeed.

[Trigonoceps occipitalis]

Re: Hmm

" ... I believe it's still perfectly legal to own a revolver, so long as it's black powder."

Actually the requirement is to be muzzle loading. See: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/02/10/muzzle-loading-revolver-conversions-in-the-uk/

(Other types are available, no connection to etc.)

The UK has got itself into a real pigs ear with firearm licensing, especially pistols. It is such a farce that the UK Olympic pistol team trains in Switzerland (even in 2012 when the venue was London).

It is some time since I followed these things closely, I stopped shooting many years ago. It does seem that an Armalite clone with manual operation is UK legal, with a low magazine limit. Obviously not as deadly so broadly and quickly as fully auto mil spec, but never the less a real threat in capable hands.

[TitterYeNot]

Re: Hmm

" ... I believe it's still perfectly legal to own a revolver, so long as it's black powder."

Actually the requirement is to be muzzle loading.

Antique pre-1939 muzzle loading handguns are not regarded as firearms in UK law if never fired and so do not require a licence. However, modern post-1939 muzzle loading handguns (usually replica antiques) are seen as firearms and require a Section 1 firearms certificate i.e. Joe Public can own them if granted a certificate.

Rare breech loading antique handguns (generally pre-1919) for which ammunution is still manufactured can be owned with a firearms certificate as section 7 weapons, but only for historical interest, and cannot be kept at home (i.e. must be kept at one of several designated secure shooting ranges.)

There's more going on to this story than has been reported. As far as I'm aware, .44 Russion and .41 calibre antique pre-1939 handguns are obsolete calibre in the UK, and so perfectly legal to own without a firearms certificate as long as they are possessed 'as a curiosity or ornament', because ammunition for them is not available.

Possibly they're modern replicas, in which case they're section 5 firearms and banned unless you're in the military or armed police etc., or he'd tried to fire them, in which case they are no longer seen as collectable antiques in the eyes of the law, but live firearms, so he'd be prosecuted for illegal possession.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Hmm

"There's more going on to this story than has been reported. As far as I'm aware, .44 Russion and .41 calibre antique pre-1939 handguns are obsolete calibre in the UK, and so perfectly legal to own without a firearms certificate as long as they are possessed 'as a curiosity or ornament', because ammunition for them is not available."

Yes .41 Colt and .44 S&W Russian are on the Home Office's current list of obsolete calibres. I wonder what the full story is.

[Androgynous Cupboard]

Re: Hmm

> 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified

So the police kill 3,500 people a year, and that's justifiable? Sweet Jesus. Roll on Megacity One.

[kain preacher]

Re: Hmm

wait does that mean you could own a 1911 .45 if it was made before 1919 ?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: AC Re: Hmm

"..... it's still perfectly legal to own a revolver, so long as it's black powder....." Firstly, only muzzle-loaders are classed as "blackpowder" firearms in the UK, so the revolver would probably get confiscated and you in trouble. Blackpowder revolvers are often easily converted to cartridge-firing. Even if you managed to convince the coppers you wanted it for something like historic recreations, you would need a second license on top of your firearms license for the blackpowder as it's classed as an explosive. About your only recourse would be to register it as a stage prop, but then your options for actually shooting it are zilch.

".....I don't think there is an upper limit to the size of firearms either, I think it's perfectly acceptable to have some monster 20mm anti-materiel rifle so long as it's bolt action and it's shooting bog standard fmj....." Unlikely. As part of your firearms certificate you have to sit down with the local constabulary and justify your weapons, providing details on where and when you plan to use them, and - seeing as there are very few ranges I can think of in the whole UK where you could shoot a 20mm rifle - I suspect your application would be rejected. I know a range in Scotland where you can fire the Barrett .50 rifles and they told me they had to go through years of paperwork and niceties before they got permission.

[Mystic Megabyte]

Re: Hmm @AC

I bow to your superior knowledge and that 120mm barrel pointing at me.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: codejunky Re: Hmm

"....Has he not heard the law bans them?" Maybe he's from Germany?

/Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Petty crime

It's just pettiness by the police. They already have plenty to justify a warrant to get his telephone and internet records (if they haven't done so already) and so know all of his associates, people who may have tried to buy or borrow the guns, sell him ammunition etc. So there is zero chance of any sort of crime breakthrough as a result of accessing the phone itself.

However the police are measured by the Home Office statistically on 'solved crimes', and by pressing this charge we the taxpayer get to pay this bloke's accommodation for an extra six months and in return the the police get to claim one more "solved crime" as a success statistic.

I don't think that is good value for money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Petty crime

Looking for his todo list?

Tuesday:

Buy milk

Shoot Brian

Pick up dry cleaning

[Cynical Observer]

Re: Petty crime

@disgustedoftunbridgewells

Surely that last item should be "Drop off Dry Cleaning" - obliterate any forensic evidence in the process

There's a particularly stubborn stain that might need extra attention ------->

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Petty crime

You're right, I clearly haven't thought through this murder caper as thoroughly as others. ( Or maybe I'm covering my tracks )

[Destroy All Monsters]

Re: Petty crime

I don't think having a Replica Antiquity in his wardrobe means he's going to off Brian today.

[streaky]

Re: Petty crime

I would say he made a limited attempt to contest the RIPA stuff because he was screwed anyway. I've never seen a case (unfortunately) where an essentially innocent (looking) party has fought back.

[Mark 85]

Re: Petty crime

That's pretty sad, isn't it? Even if one is "innocent", it plays into the "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" crowd. Once everyone is convinced, it won't stop there.

[Lee D]

Re: Petty crime

The cell records are a given.

But there may be incriminating photos, emails on accounts they didn't know abut, encrypted photos, location data that places him at scenes of crimes, etc.

Just because it's a phone doesn't mean they care about the phone calls. They KNOW those anyway - someone has to bill you for them. It's the data on the device itself that's much more valuable, probably encrypted, and can be instantly incriminating (e.g. image of him with the guns "gangsta" stylee, which kinda blows out the antique collector argument).

[Andy E]

Re: Petty crime

I don't understand why sentences are allowed to be served concurrently. How is this a punishment when you are already serving time for something else?

Reg - that last paragraph isn't really warranted. You have covered it multiple times in other articles.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Petty crime

In return for admitting it, he gets no extra jail, the police get to claim another solved crime, the defense lawyer doesn't have to do any work, the govt is saved the cost of another trial.

But plea bargains are illegal here

[streaky]

Re: Petty crime

But plea bargains are illegal here

Steady on a little bit. If you were even close to being aware just how broken the US plea bargain system is you wouldn't even be joking about this stuff. It's heavily corruptive of the very idea of criminal justice.

Yeah in the end the guy is saving everybody money but he hasn't committed an actual crime against a person (natural or otherwise) as far as the police are claiming so there's leeway. With that in mind nobody can really claim is sentence is anything but hefty. I'm not in any way suggesting his sentence should be lighter but if you kill somebody because you're driving and sending text messages you get less time for death by dangerous. Perspective is all I'm saying.

The US system is plead guilty to stealing 10k USD and get 3 months or get 40 life sentences type stuff (and I'm not exaggerating at all).

[The First Dave]

Re: Petty crime

Except that it almost certainly didn't save any money at all - Judges get paid a salary, as do almost everyone else involved, right down to PC Plod, so pleading guilty might give them a day off, but will make bugger all difference financially.

[Beebs]

Re: Petty crime

"we the taxpayer get to pay this bloke's accommodation for an extra six months"

I think not since the article clearly states:

"Jones also received a three month sentence, to run consecutively from the firearms sentences, for failing to disclose the passcodes for his phones."

which means he's actually serving no additional time for this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Petty crime

"Jones also received a three month sentence, to run consecutively from the firearms sentences, for failing to disclose the passcodes for his phones."

"which means he's actually serving no additional time for this."

Consecutively means he has to serve the three months after the main sentence finishes. Concurrently is the word used to mean they are served in parallel.

If he is well behaved in prison they he'll possibly only serve half his time anyway - followed by the rest out on licence.

[Mephistro]

Re: Petty crime

You beat me to it!

" Consecutive: following one after the other in order : SUCCESSIVE *served four consecutive terms in office*"

[Destroy All Monsters]

Oh yeah?

Britain's equivalent of the FBI

Hopefully they do not want to become the Blue Festering Heap of Incompetence and Mendacity which was already pretty bad during the hacker moral scares of the 90s but which is now reaching nadirs that makes one think of the times when Stalin Purged

[Kurt Meyer]

Re: Oh yeah?

@ Voyna i Mor

"Stalin purged competent people who might threaten his régime."

Comrade, you have an entire flock of chickens, and two cows. The party has declared you to be competent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well?

Wasn't Great Britain once a place where all men were armed? That's what made it "Great," right? But now all men in Great Britain are told they cannot be trusted with arms, and anyone who feels different is tossed in the Klink. Meanwhile millions of invaders refugees are lapping at your shores, filling your streets, and sometimes murdering you in those streets, while your politicians smile and wave in more.

Yet so many of you seem to be fully on board with the whole "being disarmed" thing, apparently made so by a lifetime of conditioning.

How is this not a form of cultural insanity?

[JimC]

Re: Well?

> thats what made it great, right

Wrong.

What made Britain into Great Britain was subduing the Welsh and Scots. Possibly temporarily.

[theblackhand]

Re: Well?

Re:What made Britain into Great Britain was subduing the Welsh and Scots. Possibly temporarily.

Maybe we just need an attempt at independence, so that we can legitimately conquer one of them to set an example as well as ending centuries of poor relations?

[Fonant]

Re: Well?

Wrong, our bit of land is Great(er) Britain, while lesser Britain is now called Brittany, in France.

It's Great as in "Big" not as in "Mighty".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Well?

It's a nice idea but doesn't fully explain the Scottish King James (of King James Bible fame) the 1st and 6th (same person) who succeeded Elizabeth I as King of England and Ireland in 1603 (and was simultaneously King of Scotland). Thus leading to the Jacobean Age (Shakespeare still around too!)

He was married to a Dane and was buried in Westmister Abbey (not at the same time or as a result of it presumably).

And it doesn't explain the Act of Union of 1707 which wasn't done by military force, despite what people think about rebellions by William Wallace and Robert Bruce etc. which were hundreds of years before King James I/VI.

Charles Stuart came along after the Act of Union 1707 but is often regarded as a continental interloper not a native ....he was born in Rome and died in the Vatican...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Well?

Great Britain is named due to it being the largest of the British Isles, Great being synonymous with large, in this context.

As for our firearms laws, we don't need guns, ours is one of the few languages where glass is a verb, and a kiss might see you seeking medical attention.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Well?

You comment is indeed insane. Have you been listening to Trump again.

[Tom 7]

Re: Well?

You've not been in a city centre on a saturday night I take it. The average brit should not be in charge of anything more dangerous than a kebab. And they can be very dangerous too and I'd like to thank those refugees for coming here and serving them for me when I'm in that state.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Well?

Try thanking one in Rotherham

[TheTick]

Re: Well?

@Big John

Without a doubt we have been conditioned to love being disarmed, and many of us seem to take a weird kind of pride about it as well, the same way some people proudly say "I'm happy to pay my taxes!". Good grief.

The sneering condescension of certain British classes (middle and upper) was curtailed in recent decades when they were told not to be nasty to the working class anymore. They couldn't stand that of course and had to find other outlets to be snobbish about the working class, so they invented the "chav" insult as well as mocking anyone who believed in anything remotely patriotic or nationalistic, and that wide net includes guns.

So our middle class lot tend to hold their noses in the air and sniff at anyone who suggests that an armed populace might actually be a little better at handling such incidents as armed jihadis storming a theatre, or trying to abduct off-duty RAF personnel to behead them. Oh no - we're CIVILIZED you see, not like you barbarians in Texas who gunned down two jihadi wannabe's before they could kill anyone. Oh no, we're happy to let our people die horribly just to prove how absolutely wonderful we are.

I say this as someone brought up middle-class myself with family who talk like this and people I went to school and university with as well. Being anti-gun control in the UK has bugger all to do with reason and everything to do with self-righteous holier than thou attitudes (I believe the term now is virtue-signalling but it's just the same thing as it's always been) to prove how much better you are than the plebs.

[phuzz]

Re: Well?

We don't need guns to stop terrorists, we have Glaswegians for that.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: Big John Re: Well?

"Wasn't Great Britain once a place where all men were armed?...." Up until after WW1, yes, but then the Bolshevik scares of 1919-1920 meant HMG didn't trust the workers not to stage a Revolution. The first licensing scheme for private firearms was introduced in 1870, but that was more of a tax than a control seeing as you just had to go to the local post office to pay for the license. Even the Pistols Act of 1903 had no teeth. But, come the Reds, and we got the Firearms Act of 1920, which gave the police the right to refuse a gun license, but you could still purchase a handgun and get a license for it's use for self-defence. Up until Dunblane, the political attitude was that criminal use of a weapon should be targeted, but then all sense went out the window.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Big John Well?

I really thought my comment would be buried in downvotes and nasty cracks about my sanity.

Maybe there is hope yet.

[cageordie]

Re: Well?

Typical yank pillock trying to prove that owning an assault rifle makes him safe from having his credit card details stolen by scammers. Your 'legal' system can't even stop the "this is your final notice" credit card refinancing scams, because so long as someone rich is making money it can't be illegal. Dickensian era oligarchy pretending to be capitalism. Go buy some guns, keep the companies rich. I bet it won't help you when you do get robbed. Most likely by the Republicans giving your super rich a 'tax break', or in other words shifting more of the burden of running their pleasure park to the cleaners and food service employees.

[Androgynous Cupboard]

Re: Well?

Oh good, Big John is back with more balanced and not-at-all racist comments.

[strum]

Re: Well?

>Yet so many of you seem to be fully on board with the whole "being disarmed" thing, apparently made so by a lifetime of conditioning.

Well, yes we are. What many Usians fail to understand is that Britain's gun laws have come about from public pressure - on governments who would really rather not bother legislating.

1910 - 'Fenian' outrages.

1987 Hungerford Massacre

1996 Dunblane Massacre

In each case, the government made solemn noises, but offered to do little more than add a few clauses to the licence forms, but were harried into tougher action by public outrage (with a little help from tabloid newspapers).

[gazthejourno]

Re: Re: Well?

In 1987 and 1996 the police had been repeatedly told, by the shooting community, that the murderers were unfit to hold firearms certificates. In each case the police failed to act – and then had the cheek to publicly call for greater restrictions on law-abiding shooters, all the while knowing full well that if they had acted, the murders could have been prevented.

[Jaybus]

Re: Well?

Yes, and 16 people were killed in the Dunblane Massacre, whilst 19 were most recently killed in Sagimahra, Japan in a similar incident. Apparently a knife works equally well in such attacks. Government can not legislate away insanity. Is the Japanese government to ban private ownership of knives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Well?

" Is the Japanese government to ban private ownership of knives?"

IIRC there was a push in the UK from a domestic violence lobby for all pointed knives with blades longer than 3 inches (75mm) to be banned from sale. They trotted out some TV chef to claim that you didn't need a pointed knife longer than that in the kitchen.

IIRC as the law stands you are on dodgy ground if you happen to have a long pointed knife anywhere in your possession in a public place. Walking to the pottery studio a few years ago - I was uncomfortably aware that my essential pointed "clay" knife in my tools bag was longer than that.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: AC Re: Well?

"....IIRC as the law stands you are on dodgy ground if you happen to have a long pointed knife anywhere in your possession in a public place...." As anticipated when it was announced, the UK law on carrying "bladed weapons" stopped a lot of Boy Scouts carrying around penknives but did SFA to stop the rate of criminals and thugs using knives in crimes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Magnum .44

Was he going for the full Dirty Harry vibe with that.

[Kurt Meyer]

Re: Magnum .44

@ AC

Neither of the guns mentioned in the article is anything like Inspector Callahan's S&W Model 29 .44 magnum.

If the descriptions of Mr. Jones' guns are correct, they are in fact 19th century weapons more suited to a collector than a 21st century gangster.

Here is an example of a "Smith & Wesson chambered in .44 Russian". The gun in question is about half way down the page. Here is another picture of the same gun. To say that ammunition for this gun is hard to find would be an understatement of the first order.

The other gun mentioned, "a Belgian copy of a Smith & Wesson .41-calibre Frontier Army gate-loading revolver", may be even less fit for the purpose intended. Here is one picture, and here is another.

Note that both examples of the second gun are chambered for the .44-40 cartridge, a far more common round than the .41 caliber mentioned in the article, although laying your hands on a supply of .44-40 cartridges might be asking a lot in 2016 in London.

All in all, there seems to be little chance of this fellow supplanting Reggie and Ronnie in the folklore of English gangsters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Magnum .44

>To say that ammunition for this gun is hard to find would be an understatement of the first order.

Why? As a kid I used to shoot 10m air rifle at the local gun club, pretty much all the practical pistol shooters loaded/reloaded their own rounds - took seconds and a chimp could probably be trained to do it.

>If the descriptions of Mr. Jones' guns are correct, they are in fact 19th century weapons more suited to a collector than a 21st century gangster.

Criminal use of vintage weapons in the UK is actually pretty common if you look at the police statistics, there are vast numbers in circulation which are both legal and cheap to buy and easy to reactivate (if that is even necessary). Legitimate of use of much older rifles and shotguns for sport is also very common - though far from a cheaper option.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sooner or later...

...The judicial system will catch up to digital crime. There is no God given or legal right to refuse access to mobile devices, PCs, etc. even though the crims and clueless try to promote coverage under privacy rights.

[kain preacher]

Re: Sooner or later...

He did not .refuse access

[Mark 85]

Re: Sooner or later...

There is no God given or legal right to refuse access to mobile devices, PCs, etc. even though the crims and clueless try to promote coverage under privacy rights.

Ok... now go over on one of the Windows 10 topics and say that.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Sooner or later...

Love is gonna getcha.....

Talk about a trial balloon. Technology is an enabler for crime, not a cause. But the consequences of this case probably just whooshed right over you.

Refusal to provide the decryption details may be the last barrier to all-intrusive gov surveillance. Eventually we will all be assimilated into the Borg... but until then, I suggest we try to slow down the process wherever we can. Even if that doesn't completely fit your worldview.

[Chris G]

Dumb

@ Big John "Wasn't Great Britain once a place where all men were armed? That's what made it "Great," right? "

That has to be one of the dumbest comments ever.

All the men that started the Iraq war (twice) were armed,nobody managed to finish that, they all walked away. Same goes for Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya etc all these places full of armed men and so far nothing 'Great' has happened.

The Great in Great Britain is answered above, as for being unarmed, the majority of Brits when pushed to fight do pretty well, in the street they use their wits even when drunk. Anything can become an improvised weapon in a pinch, as mentioned above re; glasses and the occasional kiss.

For what it's worth, a well known fact in concealed carry circles and amongst LEOs in the US is that while you are fumbling for your gun, a pissed off perp can cover about 14 feet in a second, if he's an irate possibly slightly drunk Brit, your nose will need straightening and you will need a sling for your nuts by the time you have found your gun.

Roosevelte knew what he was talking about when he said " Talk softly and carry a big stick."

I like guns, they are good for some things but over rated for others.

[Kurt Meyer]

Re: Dumb

@ Chris G

"...as for being unarmed, the majority of Brits when pushed to fight do pretty well, in the street they use their wits even when drunk. Anything can become an improvised weapon in a pinch, as mentioned above re; glasses and the occasional kiss."

Perhaps those drunken Brits should have tried kissing the Russian chappies in Marseille this summer. They might have done a little better.

[OliP]

not for a second on this guys side, but seriously if this is about investigating him in this gun issue, about who he may have spoken to and arranged things with - then everything that went into or out of that phone has been captured by one of the thousands of gchq sensors.

get a warrant, read all you want.

all this - oh we can't read it without a pin, we're locked out of all this criminal data - its bollocks & theatre.

[cageordie]

Dude? Years' ? Of or belonging to years? Not years, plural of year? Really? Where'd you fail your GCSE English?

[vdthemyk]

Sorry, I'm from the states and find it hillarious this has devolved into a gun debate. Instead it should be about the unlocking of a mobile device. In the states, you protected from self incrimmination. Plead the 5th and you should not have to do anything. Also, is there an app that wipes your phone with an alternate passcode? If not, there should be for the UK. 1234 and you access it just fine, 9876 and the phone wipes the data in the background.

[Steve 114]

Suppose his guns were for hire, and his phones identified satisfied customers. He might have a hard time inside if it turned out he'd disclosed business details.

[Schlimnitz]

Never mind worrying about whether criminals can get hold of guns.

I'm just glad the police (mostly) don't have them.

Compare "People shot and killed by police" statistics for UK and US. The first fits on one page of wikipedia (and that's since the police were created!), for the second I fear wikipedians can't quite keep up...

'Nuff said.

[mediabeing]

The writer of this article requires a refresher course in basic Journalism.

Nowhere in the article does it saw WHERE this took place.

Yes, he was a 'Londoner', and his living location is given, but it's still not clear where this happened.

This could have taken place in the USA.

Again, the article doesn't tell us where this arrest took place. Back to school.

[Anonymous Coward]

One must inciminate oneself, to keep us all safe.

Seems that the police and courts, and not just in the UK, have decided a person must incriminate themselves. Canada is also going in that direction by making it clear a person does not have the right to counsel until after charges are laid, not even when being interrogated during which the police have no obligation to be truthful.

Of course that was needed to catch those criminals so dangerous all would agree laws and rights shouldn't apply to getting them off the street but soon they will apply to all of us. Due process, presumption of innocence, basic rights are ancient ideas whose time has past, only criminals would want such rights today.

[Earth Resident]

I guess they can convict for concealment of "possible" evidence even if they cannot find it

This is bollocks. This is the equivalent of the run-up to the Iraq war. Bush and Blair tell the world that they know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but Saddam Hussein is hiding them. So they invade and kill him. In the process, they discover there were no weapons of mass destruction, but the penalty was exacted anyway.

Shouldn't a defendant be convicted based upon available evidence? If the evidence was cleverly deposited on the bottom of the Channel or encrypted in one's phone it is still unavailable to the prosecution. Now, in theory, the prosecutor can just assert that the defendant is hiding phantom evidence and convict on the concealment alone. That's pretty lame.

I have always believed that which happens in the virtual world be treated as it would in the real world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Section 49 ? Commentards?

Count me in!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Section 49 ? Commentards?

There were a few cases last year where paranoid schizophrenics, Aspies, etc were locked up under Section 49 yet in some cases the authorities did not make any attempt to find the piece of paper they were written on or otherwise search for them.

This elevates these people to prisoners of conscience, as in some cases they genuinely lost the key and therefore should not be punished for essentially being untidy.

I wonder if this has ever been used to prosecute someone for changing their WiFi code but failing to write it down, thereby ensuring the data gathered is unreadable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stripey suntan?

The sun does move around in the sky :)

Scientific research required, methinks. Any volunteers?

[rtb61]

Never Refuse

It is very legally important that you never refuse a request for you password, especially as legally, you are allowed to get it wrong. So when asked simply state you never changed the default, so password is the password, what it doesn't work, hey you broke my phone that password always worked before ;).

Whether they believe it or not is arbitrary, they can not prove you lied.