Appeal Case - Mobile Phone Stun Gun

Mobile Phone Stun Gun Case

The recent appeal case of Matthew Brereton overturned by the Appeal Court to have his sentence reduced brought to light one of the few cases where the English Courts see evidence of a stun gun disguised as a mobile phone (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2012/85.html). The casew was also reported 10th February in the the Star online news (owner_of_stun_gun_loses_prison_appeal).

One interesting aspect of this case is the adaption of a Blackberry mobile phone, where previously the styles of mobile design have hinted towards designs that roughly gave the outline impression of a Nokia or SonyEricsson etc type phone:

http://trewmte.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-comparisons-between-taser-and-stun.html
http://trewmte.blogspot.com/2007/10/another-mobile-telephone-stun-gun.html
http://trewmte.blogspot.com/2007/07/stun-gun-cellphone.html

There are other mobile devices, such as stun guns disguised as Pagers etc, which are being sold as personal protection equipment in the US and other countries, where people may believe bringing them into the UK is acceptable. Mr Justice Irwin sets out in the Appeal ruling the relevant section of the Firearms Act 1968:

1. "The relevant statutory provisions applicable to the firearms offence are as follows:

"Firearms Act 1968

Section 5(1):

A person commits an offence if, without the authority of the Defence Council, he has in his possession……

(b) Any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing ……."

Additionl background info on Mobile Phones adapted to fire bullets:
http://trewmte.blogspot.com/2008/11/mobile-phone-that-fires-bullets.html
http://www.trewmte.blogspot.com/2012/02/smaller-caliber-guided-bullet.html

Review of Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings UK - update

Review of Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings UK - update

Review of Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings
The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Gross
September 2011

This is a review ("the review") conducted at the request of and for the Lord Chief Justice, prompted by concerns as to the operation of the disclosure regime contained in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, as amended ("the CPIA").

The review was established to consider the practical operation of the CPIA disclosure regime and, if appropriate, the legislative framework, with a particular focus on the proportionality of the time and costs involved in that disclosure process.

Updated Download Link - Report:
Review of disclosure in Criminal Proceedings - September 2011 (PDF 932kb)

Review of Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings UK

Review of Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings
The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Gross
September 2011

This is a review (“the review”) conducted at the request of and for the Lord Chief Justice, prompted by concerns as to the operation of the disclosure regime contained in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, as amended (“the CPIA”).

Download report:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/disclosure-review-september-2011.pdf

Note: Text missing from the report at paragraph xiii) end of page 6, start of page 7.

Cell Site Analysis - Criminal Case

Cell Site Analysis - Criminal Case

IN HER MAJESTY'S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND

Neutral Citation no. [2008] NICA 5

THE QUEEN v RICHARD DAVID McCARTAN and BARRY DAVID SKINNER.

Appeal Court: Kerr LCJ, Campbell LJ and Morgan J

http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4F39A7FC-5350-4E4B-BB76-FA8DC4BA08D6/0/j_j_KER7057Final.htm


It is not proven with cell site analysis that evidence obtained relating to mobile call records, the Masts and their details associated with handling the calls and conducting radio test surveys combined together form a precise indication of the geographical location of a mobile telephone at the material time. Therefore, it is unlikely an alleged opinion that it is consistent to place a mobile telephone at a particular location holds weight. That cell site analysis might generally indicate the possible movement of a mobile telephone in relation to Masts that it used and no more.

Whilst the Appeal Case for the appellants (McCartan and Skinner) did not succeed it was not because cell site analysis was able to pinpoint the location of the appellants' mobile telephones, which it is unable to do, but the appellants' failure to identity what was happening with their mobile telephones at the material times. The following commentary from this Appeal Case is worth reading.

'The cell site analysis

[37] An expert in this field, David Sanderson, gave evidence, submitted a report on the subject and made a Power Point presentation to the court. Mr Fee suggested that Mr Sanderson’s evidence established that (a) call mapping was carried out in respect of telephone 008 (attributed to Mr McCartan) and telephone 301 (attributed to Mr Skinner); (b) call mapping provides an approximate indication of where a mobile phone was when a call was made; (c) call mapping is used primarily to show the likely movement of a cellular phone with a general indication of location; (d) the cellular phone may be anywhere within the best serving coverage of the sector; (e) there is boundary overlap between sectors served by different masts; (f) the extent of the best serving coverage sector is unknown; (g) the indication of movement of the person using the telephone is no more than consistent with a suggested pattern of progress – it cannot establish positively that the user of the telephone in fact moved in the mooted direction; (h) calls 15, 16 and 17 from 008 at 20.53: 20.55: 20.55 were made when the telephone was not in the vicinity of Euston Street.

[38] On the basis of this evidence Mr Fee argued that the cell site analysis did no more than provide a very imprecise indication of general movements. In the absence of a capacity to identify a precise location of the telephone within the area of best coverage it was not possible to provide any precise indication of travel direction. We are disposed to accept that Mr Fee has correctly identified the limitations that apply to the cell site analysis. As he has acknowledged, however, it does provide a general indication of the movements of the users of the telephones. If the appellants followed a different pattern of movements on the day in question, it was open to them to give evidence about those movements and to explain where they had been at the critical time in relation to the shooting. Their failure to do so, combined with the general indication that the cell site analysis provided, constituted strong evidence against them that their movements were as indicated by that analysis. In Mr McCartan’s case, his inquiry of the interviewing police officers as to how precisely he could be tied down to a particular area was also, in our judgement, extremely telling.'

The comments of the Appeal Court in para [38] suggests the appellants' own lack of self-preservation to state what their mobile telephones were doing and the reasons for going in a direction following the line of Masts used for handling calls, undermined the cell site analysis element of their appeal.

First case using wireless communications - history

First case using wireless communications - history

.

Photo courtesy of executedtoday.com

.

At the first UK MTEB Mobile Forensics Conference 2009, last week (25th/26th Nov), the speaker Adam Gersch (Barrister 23 Essex Street) provided the audience with a refreshing reminder of the first case in the UK that made use of wireless telegraphy communication evidence in criminal proceedings noted in the landmark case of Dr (Hawley Harvey) Crippen. Dr Crippen was caught whilst escaping onboard a ship crossing the Atlantic Ocean by the eagle-eyed Ship's Captain who suspected two passengers travelling under the name of 'John Robinson' to be Crippen and his girlfriend (dressed as a boy) as the ‘cellar-murder fugitive and his friend’ wanted by the Police and on the run.

.

In the nick of time the Ship's Captain sent a wireless telegram to the authorities before the ship would be out of radio range for ship-to-shore wireless communications to let them know of their presence on board his ship. Dr Crippen was found guilty at trial and was executed at Pentonville Prison on the 23rd November 1910.

.

Links to background of Dr Crippen Case:

http://www.executedtoday.com/2007/11/23/1910-hawley-harvey-crippen/
http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/web/crime-museum-uk/episode-guide/dr-crippen/

.

As an analogy, perhaps a wireless telegram back then would most probably equate today as a wireless telegraphy SMS text message (in terms of mobile telephones). This case is a useful reminder of the importance radio provided back then and still today mobile communications new and exciting evolution continues to provide important communication services, infrastructure and networks, nationally and internationally.

.

Mobile Communications Science History:

Of course, the mobile telephone's use of wireless telegraphy has its roots in scientific history long before the hybrid computer was even dreamt about:

.

- 1868: James Clerk Maxwell postulates EM wave phenomenon ethereal wind theory

- 1886: Heinrich Rudolf Hertz establishes proof of EM wave (Hertz cycle)

- 1893:Gugliemo Marconi first use of wireless and first patent of wireless communications

- 1905: Reginald Fessenden first transmission of speech and music via a wireless link

- 1908: Nathan B. Stubblefield invented and patented the first mobile telephone over 100-years ago

- etc

.

http://trewmte.blogspot.com/2009/01/mobile-forensics-and-evidence-degrees.html

http://www.forensicfocus.com/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=3388