exclusion of mobile phone mast evidence overruled
After two persons were directly acquitted on suspicion of their role in historical crimes, a biased appeal was filed.
Details of these persons and the crimes charged cannot be published because they are not currently charged with any crimes.
The judge\'s ruling was about whether it was possible to rely on the records of the mobile phone mast to connect the personal phone with the defendant and place them at the relevant location at the relevant time.
In the first such application since the establishment of the Court of Appeal, the attorney general asked to declare that the trial judge had wrongly ruled out compelling evidence.
The DPP also demanded that the acquittal of these people be ordered and reviewed.
Given the judgment, Mr. George Birmingam said that in the course of the interrogation, there are two original battery websites that may not be the closest to the original website through this appeal: too busy or not working properly.
The trial judge ruled that the evidence was not admissible, \"in the absence of appropriate authoritative evidence to describe the function and operation of the relevant date system \".
The trial judge ruled that it seemed feasible for the prosecution to have such evidence.
However, the Birmingham judge said there was nothing to conclude that the computer system was not operating as expected, or that there was anything unreliable about the data recorded.
Witnesses from Meteor and O2, he said, were familiar with what computers needed to do and were able to say the computers were doing well.
At most, there is no certainty that the attempt to approach one or more other masts did not fail.
This is, however, a \"typical\" issue rather than an acceptance issue.
The Birmingham judge said that in this regard, it is important that the prosecution not determine the exact location of the call, but to determine the general direction of the trip.
He said that the Court of Appeal was satisfied that the judge had made a mistake in excluding the disputed evidence.
Given the results of the early trial, the court was also satisfied that this was convincing evidence.
Judge Birmingham, sitting with Judge Alan Mahon and Judge John Edwards, will hear opinions on what orders should be followed, in particular whether the retrial is appropriate, July 21.
On January, the prosecutor told the court of appeal that no accused had been charged at a particular location, but at a general location.
The exact location of the call has never been determined and it is impossible to determine, he said.
He said that if a call is routed through a specific cell site, the call is not made from the other side of the country, but from the coverage of the cell site.
He said it was true evidence that the calls were made at the time and that the conclusion to be drawn was the matter of the jury.
He said that the judge extended the necessary conditions for invoking such evidence and did so in error.
He said that if the Court of Appeal did not correct this error, the ongoing difficulties would persist and would appear in criminal trials.
In his reply to the prosecution, defense counsel stated that there were two cases where the record could become unreliable and that was the problem.
The problem arises whether the mast is closed and whether the rerouting call due to overloading.
Counsel said that the maintenance records of the cell site had been in place for three years, but did not appear to be recorded in a timely manner.
This is not a theoretical possibility, he said, but the mast is \"not very often\" turned off.
At the time, he said, at least evidence related to the operation of the system was needed.
The judge mentioned that it seemed a reasonable expectation based on what the evidence was and how it was presented.
All the prosecution has to do is look at the records, counsel said.
The defense was hampered, the lawyer said.
Secondly, if the call is rerouted due to overload, then the call will be sent to the cell where the signal is weak and you will not expect it to be sent to that cell.
There is a lot of expert evidence about the operation of the system, and \"these two faults in the system\" must be explained clearly to satisfy the judges in a unique position to see its importance, he said.