This question is obviously triggered by current events, but I'll try to 
keep it hypothetical.

Part of a police constable's job is to investigate crimes, gather and 
analyse evidence in the interests of justice.

Not only that but the prosecution has a duty to disclose all relevant 
evidence to the defence.

Given those two assertions, I can't see how a police officer revealing 
information that undermines a case to the defence to be a bad thing.

If the prosecution case is flawed, say a speed gun hadn't been 
calibrated correctly, then surely there's a duty for that evidence to be 
disclosed?

a@b.invalid wrote:
> This question is obviously triggered by current events, but I'll try to 
> keep it hypothetical.
> 
> Part of a police constable's job is to investigate crimes, gather and 
> analyse evidence in the interests of justice.
> 
> Not only that but the prosecution has a duty to disclose all relevant 
> evidence to the defence.
> 
> Given those two assertions, I can't see how a police officer revealing 
> information that undermines a case to the defence to be a bad thing.
> 
> If the prosecution case is flawed, say a speed gun hadn't been 
> calibrated correctly, then surely there's a duty for that evidence to be 
> disclosed?
> 

This is, indeed, how it *should* be, IMHO.

I am a retired police officer and served in the days before the CPS when 
we prosecuted our own summary offences.

In those days, a charge would be made based on there being *some* 
credible evidence (unlike today's expectation of winning). There was 
often a doubt as to the guilt or otherwise of the person charged but it 
was not our job to find a person guilty; that was for the court. Our job 
was simply to give all the evidence to the court, even evidence in the 
favour of the defendant.

Today, the CPS seem to have changed all that and, by prosecuting only 
those cases that they expect to win, they are, to a degree, usurping the 
authority of the court (and behind closed doors). This, I believe, may 
be putting pressure on today's officers to support the prosecution 
rather than the court. This is particularly so because of the control 
that the CPS has in the presentation of the case. It may actually be 
difficult for a police officer to gain the opportunity to speak out in 
favour of the defendant.

-- 
Howard Neil

<snip>
>> If the prosecution case is flawed, say a speed gun hadn't been
>> calibrated correctly, then surely there's a duty for that evidence
>> to be disclosed?
>>
>
> This is, indeed, how it *should* be, IMHO.
>
<snip>

Is that really analogous to the accusation that a certain senior officer 
(A) "was used as a consultant to point out flaws in a death by dangerous 
driving case being defended by [B]"[1] [2]?  ISTM there are significant 
differences:

a.     if A is rewarded by B then there are potential conflicts of 
interest; and a very manifest risk of the *perception* of such 
conflicts;

b.    what if B is revealing not matters of evidence but of procedure - 
eg questions to put to the prosecution about process which A (as an 
insider) knows are or were too expensive to deal with?

c.    there needs to be a chain of command in any large organisation. 
If you speak up, don't like the decisions but can't get them changed 
then resign.  Anyone , no matter how senior, who ignores the rules 
because s/he knows better deserves in my view only 2 things: a P45 and a 
very short reference.

[1] 
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23555137-details/Police+watchdog+probes+Met+officer+who+'told+race-claim+lawyer+how+to+win+court+case+against+his+own+force'/article.do
[2] 
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1054804/The-crooked-lawyer-good-friend-police-chief-told-tear-case-apart.html
-- 
Robin

> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/
> http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/

Not very good references to pick, at the best of times the Mail isn't a 
very good source but it appears that Associated Newspapers is running a 
campaign against the person concerned, take this as an example:

"Each time a charge of racism against the Met has hit the headlines, the 
sanctimonious bleating of ..."

> a.     if A is rewarded by B then there are potential conflicts of 
> interest; and a very manifest risk of the *perception* of such 
> conflicts;

Everyone involved in the case is being rewarded by someone. The judge, 
barristers, solicitor, expert witnesses and policeman aren't turning up 
for charity. Someone being paid by both prosecution and defence is 
likely to be the least biased.

> b.    what if B is revealing not matters of evidence but of procedure - 
> eg questions to put to the prosecution about process which A (as an 
> insider) knows are or were too expensive to deal with?

Then they are legitimate lines of enquiry to attack. If Met procedure is 
to take DNA evidence with used lolly sticks because medical swabs are 
too expensive then the defence should be told.

> c.    there needs to be a chain of command in any large organisation. 
> If you speak up, don't like the decisions but can't get them changed 
> then resign.  Anyone , no matter how senior, who ignores the rules 
> because s/he knows better deserves in my view only 2 things: a P45 and a 
> very short reference.

The Third Reich had a chain of command, and unfortunately lots of people 
followed the rules.

>
> The Third Reich had a chain of command, and unfortunately lots of
> people followed the rules.

Did you note that I included "then resign"?  Faced with a conflict 
between legitimate orders and personal conscience then resignation seems 
to me the proper course.  (AIUI some Wehrmacht officers did just that in 
the 1930s in protest at the orders from Nazi leaders.)

Undermining ones organisation secretly seems to me dishonourable.  But 
then I suppose honour and integrity no longer feature in the 
victim/rights culture.
-- 
Robin

> Undermining ones organisation secretly seems to me dishonourable.  But 
> then I suppose honour and integrity no longer feature in the 
> victim/rights culture.

Knowingly allowing an innocent person to be found guilty of a crime is 
less dishonourable?

Maybe upholding the constable's oath, especially the bit about 
impartiality, means something.