Bristol police chief cleared of contempt of court
Chief Constable Colin Port has avoided a contempt of court charge after an 11th-hour climb down – handing back child porn images seized from a computer expert in an "unlawful" raid on his home.
The head of Avon and Somerset police was facing the prospect of being sent to jail for apparently defying a High Court order that digital and hard-copy files should be returned to Terence "Jim" Bates.
But, having spoken publicly about whether it would be in the public interest to comply with the ruling made last month, Mr Port finally succumbed to legal advice and gave back 87 computer hard drives on Monday night – the eve of a contempt of court application.
A judge yesterday criticised Mr Port's behaviour in the case.
The police investigation into Mr Bates has been dropped and he now plans to sue Avon and Somerset police for damages. The 68-year-old is a forensic computer analyst used by police and defence lawyers in paedophile cases. He had case files and hundreds of images at his home in Leicestershire, which he says all related to his work as an expert witness.
Last September, police obtained a warrant and raided Mr Bates' home, but the High Court deemed the warrant to be "unlawful" because much of the material seized attracted legal privilege or was confidential. But crucially, when the order was made on May 8 to return the material, no deadline was set.
So yesterday, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, sitting with Mr Justice Wilkie and Mr Justice Calvert Smith at London's High Court, dismissed the allegations that Mr Port had breached the order and been in contempt of court. However, Lord Justice Burnton criticised the chief constable's behaviour.
"The chief constable had an obligation to comply," he said. "He did not do so. Instead, he gave an interview to The Sun that gave grounds that he might indeed not comply with the order. It's regrettable in a case involving a chief constable the matter has come this far but in my judgment this is not a case where there is an enforceable committal."
He said Mr Port's comments in the media were not "unequivocal" refusals to comply with the order.
Outside the high court, Mr Port stood by his actions. He said: "Whilst I am pleased that the contempt proceedings have been dismissed there are still other issues to resolve.
"This case has highlighted the need for a comprehensive, national review into the circumstances under which people access this highly sensitive material and retain it.
"Each time these images are viewed it is a fresh victimisation of the child. We need a nationwide accreditation system with clear rules that safeguard victims and a fail-safe that allows accreditation to be withdrawn should any aspect of those rules be breached."
The court has permitted the retention of computer hard drives and for the benefit of all of the victims I call for them to be destroyed.
Early last year, Bates was convicted of perjury for falsifying his degree qualifications. He was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to possess indecent images of children in September and released on bail.
The police claimed Bates had 2,500 photographs of children. He disputes that, saying there were only about 250, all relating to historic cases which the police had knowledge of. He then obtained an injunction banning the police from examining the material seized.
Last Friday, the police investigation was dropped.
Yesterday, the court heard allegations levelled at the police by Mr Bates' barrister Alun Jones, QC.
He alleged that despite the injunction ordering the computers and images should not be examined, some had in fact been "covertly and clandestinely examined" when five PCs and two laptops were sent to Gwent Police on September 30.
He said: "One of his (Mr Port's) officers was telling us there's no copying going on. Copying and examining was exactly what was happening. We were misled and the divisional court was misled."
He criticised Mr Port for a "continuing failure to comply with the order" and said paper files were still missing. Mr Jones also alleged data from Mr Bates' mobile phone had been copied onto a CD.
As he applied for a committal for contempt of court, he said the comments Mr Port had made in the national press showed he was determined to defy the order and the "innuendo" in the articles was damaging to Mr Bates' reputation.
But Mr Port's barrister Jonathan Caplan, QC, refuted all claims.
He said: "They are speculation without foundation and they are untrue. My firm indications are that no copies have been taken. I'm not aware of any material that's not been returned, save the hard copy images."
He said talks would take place between both parties to decide which of these images can be destroyed. If there is disagreement, they will be returned to Mr Bates. He assured the court that if copies were found they would be returned in seven days.
Mr Jones confirmed his client will be suing Avon and Somerset police for damages.
5 Comments
by Peter, Chard
Wednesday, June 17 2009, 11:19PM
“The business involving Colin Port and Jim Bates is but a rearguard action by the police aimed at delaying evidence uncovered regarding the notorious ¿Operation ore¿ from ever entering the public domain. Once the group action appeals begin and the truth revealed that many men have been convicted who were victims of identity theft then the repercussions could be enormous and heads could roll.”
by George, Bristol
Wednesday, June 17 2009, 2:38PM
“A policeman abusing his position? Surely not......”
by Tessa Boo, London W11 1NR
Wednesday, June 17 2009, 1:31PM
“Why was this policemen so keen to hang onto discs which the expert witness had in relation to his forensic computer work?
The 'so called storing child abusive images claim would seem to be very questionable and a red herring !
The forensic computer expert would have various sensitive, confidential material relating to cases.
His work is sanctioned by the courts.
Something is smelling very badly of fish in this case.
It is hard to understand or explain away the actions of the Avon and Somerset chief constable !”
by Vic, Bristol
Wednesday, June 17 2009, 9:56AM
“Regardless of the issues related to the Terrence Bates case, I don't think it sets a good example when a Chief Constable chooses to ignore the law and plays a game of brinksmanship, and sets himself up as judge, jury and upholder of public morals. Thankfully we don't live in Police State.
One of the declared principles behind the role of the police is to be seen to do all things with integrity, common sense and sound judgement. Disregarding the direction of a judge and communicating through the press (well, The Sun) does not really support this principle.
If the police want to contribute to changing the criminal justice system, in this case related to the access and retention of sensitive material, then there are routes for doing this: These do not involve taking the law into one's own hands.
I hope that the Chief Constable is dealt with in suitable way by the police authority.”
by Right Here, Right Now
Wednesday, June 17 2009, 8:41AM
“The more I hear about this case, the less convinced I am that the Police are in the right.
Previous articles on BEP left me with the impression that Mr Bates had something to hide and perhaps had taken too much interest in the subject matter.
However, more balanced media outlets such as the BBC & ITV gave a far more rounded picture of the dispute and it seems to me an attempt by A&S to gag and intimidate Mr Bates, thus rendering any appeal evidence he gave against Operation Ore questionable.
Without doubt, child porn needs to be tackled strongly and ALL involved brough before the courts but we need to be sure that people have not been railroaded into confessions on the back of credit card fraud.
Mr Port has sought to appeal directly to the mob (via the Sun & DM) and thankfully the courts were not impressed by this.
This is an awful crime for anybody innocent to be accused of and it is very hard to disprove as computers may have changed, time has elapsed and alibi's forgotten. The only proof against these people was their card activity alone and the evidence must be beyond reproach, for all our sakes!”