Legal Evidence: Use of Intelligence Information
The significant rise of insecurity incidences has forced different states to begin using proactive strategies such as using intelligence information to keep their states safe. Although the agencies employ these strategies with good intentions, the enforcers of these policies tend to overstep their jurisdiction in the process. States can promote the use of intelligence information in court through legalizing the use of intelligence information in courts and supervising the acquisition and use of the information among the relevant government officers.
Question
How can states utilize intelligence information in courts as legal evidence?
Key Points
There are legal issues that arise in the courts regarding the legality of law enforcement agencies using intelligence evidence to prosecute a suspect. This is due to the intelligence agencies often using controversial methods to obtain the information (Risen & Lichtblau 2005). Besides, some states such as France prohibit the sharing of information between the intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies (Risen & Lichtblau 2005). This gives the defense lawyers a chance to dismiss the evidence in court due to their unconstitutionality.
Discussion
The legal issues arise due to the constitutional restrictions on the use of intelligence information in court. According to Bigo et al. (2015) States such as France and Italy prohibit the courts from using intelligence information that the prosecutors present as secret evidence. Additionally, France prohibits the intelligence agencies from sharing intelligence information with law enforcement agencies. These States do these to maintain the States’ security and allowing suspects to get fair trials.
On the contrary, other States such as the United Kingdom allow the use of intelligence information in court. The states regulate the collection of this information through the formulation of legislations such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Gov.UK 2014). The legislations govern the information collection process to prevent possible violations of the law during the collection process and the resultant jeopardy of the evidence’s validity.
Recommendation
First, the states should make the use of legal information in court legal through the state’s parliamentary legislations (Zavrsnik 2013). This will prevent the defense lawyers from raising legitimate concerns and jeopardizing the whole case. For instance, such legal provisions enable the prosecutors in the United States to use information from shielded witness programs in court (van Voorhout 2006). This has made the prosecutors to solve many complicated cases.
Furthermore, the states should carefully supervise the acquisition and use of this intelligence information. States such as the United States have successfully used the Parliament to describe the cases in which the intelligence information is acceptable in court (van Voorhout 2006). Moreover, America’s federal government has prevented further legal issues by categorizing the information to allow the use of a section of the information in court (Vervaele 2005). This maintains the credibility of the information that the sources obtain.
Legalizing the use of intelligence information in courts and the supervision of the acquisition and use of the information is essential for the proper use of the information in court. Legalizing the information prevents the dismissal of the case due to the questioning of their legality. Contrarily, supervising the acquisition of the information prevents constitutional breaches that might jeopardize the evidence’s credibility.
Bibliography
Bigo, D., Carrera, S., Hernanz, N. and Scherrer, A., 2015. National Security and Secret Evidence in Legislation and before the Courts: Exploring the Challenges. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 78/January 2015.
Gov.UK. 2014. Intercept as Evidence. Williams Lea Group, London. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intercept-as-evidence-review (Accessd 07 March 2017)
Risen, J. and Lichtblau, E., 2005. Bush lets US spy on callers without courts. New York Times, 16, p.A1.
van Voorhout, J.E., 2006. Intelligence as Legal Evidence-Comparative Criminal Research into the Viability of the Proposed Dutch Scheme of Shielded Intelligence Witnesses in England and Wales, and Legislation Compliance with Article 6 (3)(d) ECHR. Utrecht L. Rev., 2, p.119.
Vervaele, J.A., 2005. Terrorism and information sharing between the intelligence and law enforcement communities in the US and the Netherlands: emergency criminal law?. Revue internationale de droit pénal, 76(3), pp.409-443.
Zavrsnik, A., 2013. Blurring the Line between Law Enforcement and Intelligence: Sharpening the Gaze of Surveillance?. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 9(1).
