Fair Cop Court of Appeal 8-10 March

like this IW - our case was NOT about rationality of perception based recording - it was about rationality of recording with NO EVIDENCE OF HATE.

So CoP didn't address our argument at all.

nauticant fabulous

I think he's implying that CoP is all smoke and mirrors

He also says guidance isn't intended to be comprehensive as if that absolves CoP for responsibility for any omissions. Can't have any traction with new version. He says its 'high level guidance', what does that mean? officers on the ground rely on it.

The current case in the Court of Appeal allmywhat is about the guidance of the College of Policing and their argument is "we've written our shitty guidance but we are not responsible for what police forces do when they follow it".

IW is really laying into them now

IW - significant change in how CoP presented their case. He used word 'categorisation' repeatedly. Clearly a deliberate decision to try to make the whole procedure more palatable. Its a recording. That's what it says on the tin.

If you go on social media and say anything that might upset someone, you have a very real possibility of a police recording about it.

JUDGE - new guidance p274 example of incident at a party in someone's home.

IW I reiterate the point. The CoP are emboldened and reach grows.

IW - I read 140K incidents recorded

Judge - what period? We must be clear, volume is such they cannot be investigated. Bloody Hell, wonder if I'm one of them

Fairly limp argument - "this can't have a chilling effect, because it's merely a police record kept purely for intelligence purposes".

But this case involved a police officer calling round to "check Harry's thinking!" Are they arguing that checking people's thinking is against the guidelines, but merely keeping the information and secretly disclosing it to employers is not?

I'm coming round to thinking that even if Harry Miller loses, there's enough here for the judges, and other legal people they talk to, to chew on to realise that they're looking at harmful institutional capture, even if they wouldn't themselves put it in those terms.

It looks like it's going to have to be a long march through lots of court cases for things to return to a balance of competing interests.

IW theme through JC's submissions was that due to operation of both sets of guidance, the Hate Crimes guidance in essence made no difference. He was asked how this incident would be recorded under National standards - and he could not answer. He is still unable to present the evidence that is the central plank of his case - he is saying 'none of this matters'.

@PronounssheRa I was just about to say that I wonder if that was deliberate?

IW 'victim' and 'suspect' now given specific approval by this guidance and a school child now becomes 'a suspect'.

Hope people are interested in this?

Judge - we want a track changes document and a schedule of changes and deletions.

This is good ^ wonder if records are going to be as good as they have been in Tavi case?

IW We haven't been pointed to one restraint in the new guidance - instead it has become more extensive.

JC - new guidance makes it clear its a matter for the school management team not police.

Well, there ya go

we don't have windows into people's souls

It's never a good sign for someone when judges quite Elizabeth Tudor. I wonder if we'll hear the corollary

Is must a word to be addressed to princes?

Now Harry's lot doing some summing up I think? IW - what seems to have happened is the CoP are EMBOLDENED by the judgment. The only substance I could ascertain was changed was that the CoP are bringing this into schools!

IW so a child who says something derogatory at school could be recorded. This gets worse not better. This is not constraints or sensible balancing. Its entrenching the errors already apparent.

KILLER POINT

JC This guidance does take considerable steps to addressing the problems raised in case such as Mr Miller but without significantly compromising the important principle of perception based recording. That is balance struck by College.

Have they already provided guidance, or do they intend doing that???

It's easy to browse away from today's hearing, return to the page, and become very confused by a growing sense of déjà vu. But then you realise that on returning to the page youtube has defaulted to playing the stream from yesterday.

JC I will always seek to do that! (delighted judicial chuckling). political motivation may not require any significant investigation. but you are right, some safeguards will require investigation.

Maybe could be curtailing police actions???

It does seem that the judges have a very firm grasp of the issues.

Lady judge - Looking at the reality - we don't have windows into people's souls. Not an easy issue to resolve

Leyla Moran would disagree

Judge - in the real world how does this square with your statement that volume of messages is so large it is impossible for police to make decisions on safeguards. How do these safeguards operate when so many complaints?

[Junior lawyers - beware 'in the real word']
JC - I cant get away from high volume

Judge - you want your cake and to eat it. You now seek to rely on the prospect of investigation after the event.

This is interesting

Thanks highame

I think the judge just told them they were trying to have their cake and eat it!

Ova difficult to tell, sometimes it's like CoP arguments would back up Harry's case. Odd really

JC is now earning his money. He is saying guidance needs to be better but is trying to make sure this procedure is not abandoned or so limited in scope it doesn't work

Just trying to catch up one this one a bit. It's not very easy to follow the arguments. What's the general feeling on how well it's going?