Bristol police chief faces jail term
Avon and Somerset's chief constable risks jail after threatening to defy a High Court order to hand back suspected child porn pictures seized by police.
Colin Port's officers are holding 87 computer hard drives and about 2,500 pornographic images of children in a probe into a possible paedophile conspiracy.
-
![942424[1]](http://i.thisis.co.uk/274156/article/images/999558/942453.jpg)
Chief Constable Colin Port
The material was taken from the Leicestershire home of a discredited computer expert, who previously gave his opinion in court cases involving child pornography.
But before Avon and Somerset Police had a chance to examine the items, the 68-year-old expert obtained a High Court order preventing officers from proceeding with the investigation.
Two senior judges declared the warrant and seizure of the property unlawful and ordered police to hand back the hard drives, forbidding any examination of them.
But Mr Port said the ruling went against all common sense and said he may risk jail and refuse to comply.
Mr Port, who joined the force as chief constable in January 2005, said: "Clearly, defying the court is a serious matter and one that is not taken lightly. However, I take the view of what would the public expect me to do?
"They would expect me to stand up to it and I am now seeking legal advice and considering my position. We are looking at every option not to return this material.
"We don't know what's on these hard drives but it is highly likely they contain indecent material going back to the 1990s. They were found with over 2,500 hard copies of child abuse images and they must have come from somewhere. Common sense dictates to me that we shouldn't be returning indecent images to anyone – yet I am prevented from even examining the material."
If Mr Port refuses to hand back the material, he could find himself in contempt of court and facing a custodial sentence.
Avon and Somerset Police spokesman Wayne Baker said: "We are discussing the findings of the judicial review.
"Throughout this matter, officers believed that they were acting with good intent in the interests of public safety and protection."
The computer expert at the centre of the controversy obtained notice of a Judicial Review, which effectively froze the police probe, after officers raided his home.
His property was searched after he was convicted as a liar who exaggerated his qualifications.
He was given a six-month suspended jail term for making false written statements and perjury.
16 Comments
View all
by Know all, bristol
Tuesday, May 19 2009, 7:30PM
“Colin Port is only giving half the story. Avon and someset actuallt signed a a court document consenting to return the hard discs, the compensation figure to be paid for the raid now declared illegal has yet to set. I am sure Colin Port has this high on hos mind, after all it will be the tax payer that has to pay the compensation.”
by james, bristol
Tuesday, May 19 2009, 5:07PM
“Before you all go on about this man being a bad un and that he should be castrated why not read the full judgment at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/942.html and get the full facts.
If Mr Port had given the full facts rather than being sensationalist about child pornography before going to the media then perhaps he would not get the public support he has gained form some quarters.
This was not a case of smashing a child porn ring. This was a case of the police getting back child porn that was in their possession and they had provided back from an expert that they had decided should not have it.
The facts as reported in the above case are briefly:- a man was accused and awaiting trial on charges of possessing child porn on his computer. He wished to instruct Mr Bates as an expert witness. Mr bates had been discredited for overstating his qualifications, yet was still an expert with over 30 years experience. Mr Bates attended with another expert at the police offices and the police provided them with the material. Upon finding it was Mr Bates, a discredited expert witness, the police applied for a warrant at the Magistrates Court to search his premises. In order to obtain the warrant they were economical with the truth. Had they been truthful they could not have obtained the warrant. The police said that Mr Bates was not authorised as an expert witness by the Crown Court and that Crown court had excluded him as an expert witness. Neither was true. Firstly, it is for a party to decide whom to instruct as an expert not the Court. The issue of him being discredited would go to the weight given to any evidence he may provide. Secondly, no judge in the Crown Court had excluded him as a witness. Consequently, the warrant was unlawful.
The police then went further than limiting themselves to retrieving the material, they decided to seize all of his computers and all of his other material. Given his line of work, they could not be sure that the things contained on the computers etc were not subject to legal privilege and may have details of other cases contained on them. Consequently, they were not entitled to seize these either. Nevertheless, Mr Bates work must have been compromised let alone his ability to earn a living.
If the police really did believe, even if wrongly, that Mr bates should not have the material, then they should have greater security of the child porn that is in their possession rather than hand it out willy-nilly.
Rather than using the usual police methods employed these days of beating everyone with a stick, perhaps this is one that they may just have been well advised to keep quiet and merely asked for the material back. This would have avoided a public analysis of their failings.
As for not being able to examine the material ¿ give me a break you already know what¿s on it.
Egg on face Mr Port? I think so.”
by Mike, Bristol
Monday, May 18 2009, 9:38PM
“I have to say. Well done Mr Port on this one. At last some common sense coming through, there is hope.”
by Martin, Clifton
Monday, May 18 2009, 9:26PM
“The courts should be backing the police, not threatening them.”
by Bing, Eastonia
Monday, May 18 2009, 4:37PM
“Methinks a masonic plot is afoot. He may be a Chief Constable but he's obviously not a Grand Inspector General of the 33rd degree as some of the judiciary are alleged to be.”