Shining a Light on Policing of the Dark Web: An analysis of UK investigatory Powers

The dark web and the proliferation of criminals who have exploited its cryptographic protocols to commit crimes anonymously has created major challenges for law enforcement around the world. Traditional policing techniques have required amendment and new techniques have been developed to break the dark web’s use of encryption. As with all new technology, the law has been slow to catch up and police have historically needed to use legislation which was not designed with the available technology in mind. This paper discusses the tools and techniques police use to investigate and prosecute criminals operating on the dark web in the UK and the legal framework in which they are deployed. There are two specific areas which are examined in depth: the use of covert policing and hacking tools, known in the UK as equipment interference. The operation of these investigatory methods within the context of dark web investigations has not previously been considered in UK literature, although this has received greater analysis in the United States and Australia. The effectiveness of UK investigatory powers in the investigation of crimes committed on the dark web are analysed and recommendations are made in relation to both the law and the relevant Codes of Practice. The article concludes that whilst the UK has recently introduced legislation which adequately sets out the powers police can use during online covert operations and when hacking, the Codes of Practice need to specifically address the role these investigative tools play in dark web investigations. Highlighted as areas of particular concern are the risks of jurisdiction forum shopping and hacking overseas. Recommendations are made for reform of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to ensure clarity as to when equipment interference can be used to search equipment when the location of that equipment is unknown

No More Laissez Faire? Expert Evidence, Rule Changes and Reliability: Can More Effective Training for the Bar and Judiciary Prevent Miscarriages of Justice?

The apparent link between miscarriages of justice in prosecutions involving expert evidence and the level of training provided to the legal profession (the Bar in particular) and the judiciary in respect of such evidence was highlighted in 2005 with the publication of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Report Expert Evidence on Trial.2 The Law Commission, in the 2011 Report Expert Evidence in England and Wales 3 subsequently comprehensively addressed the same issue. This article seeks to consider why appropriate training in relation to expert evidence is so necessary and questions whether, in the context of the amendments to what is now Part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR19) and Part 19A of the Criminal Practice Direction (CrimPD19A), there have been sufficient developments in training to effect a cultural change within the legal profession and ultimately substantially reduce the risk of future miscarriages of justice. Finally, the article debates the nature of required training, arguing that much more detailed training is required than has previously been considered and addresses where this training best sits

Advocacy 20 years on from Hampel: is it time we revisited the postgraduate teaching of advocacy?

This paper seeks to discuss the teaching of advocacy as a discipline with specific reference to the way in which advocacy is taught on the Bar Professional Training Course in England and Wales. The Advocacy Training Council favours the Hampel Method of teaching advocacy first developed more than 20 years ago in Australia. The paper seeks to review the use of the Hampel Method by offering a critique of behaviourist learning theory from a constructivist standpoint and putting forward alternative teaching techniques which are in harmony with the principles of constructivism, experiential learning and productive failure. We conclude that the teaching of advocacy can be improved and that greater scholarship is needed in this important area to ensure students are taught using the best techniques

A network-based approach for estimating pedestrian journey-time exposure to air pollution

Individual exposure to air pollution depends not only upon pollution concentrations in the surrounding environment, but also on the volume of air inhaled, which is determined by an individual’s physiology and activity level. This study focuses on journey-time exposure, using network analysis in a GIS environment to identify pedestrian routes between multiple origins and destinations throughout the city of Lancaster, North West England. For each segment of a detailed footpath network, exposure was calculated accounting for PM2.5 concentrations (estimated using an atmospheric dispersion model) and respiratory minute volume (varying between individuals and with slope). For each of the routes generated the cumulative exposure to PM2.5 was estimated, allowing for easy comparison between multiple routes. Significant variations in exposure were found between routes depending on their geography, as well as in response to variations in background concentrations and meteorology between days. Differences in physiological characteristics such as age or weight were also seen to impact journey-time exposure considerably. In addition to assessing exposure for a given route, the approach was used to identify alternative routes that minimised journey-time exposure. Exposure reduction potential varied considerably between days, with even subtle shifts in route location, such as to the opposite side of the road, showing significant benefits. The method presented is both flexible and scalable, allowing for the interactions between physiology, activity level, pollution concentration and journey duration to be explored. In enabling physiology and activity level to be integrated into exposure calculations a more comprehensive estimate of journey-time exposure can be made, which has potential to provide more realistic inputs for epidemiological studies

Making the case for ECRIS: Post “Brexit” sharing of criminal records information between the European Union and United Kingdom

Criminal record information has various uses including, in the detection of crime, as evidence in criminal proceedings, in consideration of an appropriate sentence after conviction and in determining the suitability of an individual for, or providing a bar to, employment. As such this information can have a high value but can also significantly interfere with a person’s right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The importance of Article 8 in this area has been increasingly recognised in both domestically and in Strasbourg with such case law making clear the imperative that criminal record information is accurate, retained and disclosed only in proper circumstances and, where appropriate, is capable of being subject to proper challenge. The operation of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) for exchange of criminal records between member states is explored and the benefits and risks of exchanging criminal records information within such an automated system are identified. The compliance of ECRIS to Article 8 ECHR is considered and suggestions made for future improvements. Evidence is provided that ECRIS constitutes a singular improvement on earlier ad-hoc arrangements and should therefore be retained by the United Kingdom post-Brexit

Extradition between the UK and Ireland is at risk because of Brexit

Extradition between the UK and Ireland after Brexit will be particularly affected by a No-Deal Brexit. In this post, Paul Arnell (Robert Gordon University) and Gemma Davies (Northumbria University) bring a closer understanding of the problems on the horizon and ways of mitigating them

The forum bar in UK extradition law: an unnecessary failure.

The introduction of the forum bar into UK extradition law was unnecessary. It is a failure. It was unnecessary because extant law addressed, or could have addressed, the putative mischief giving rise to it. It is a failure because it admits only limited and optional prosecutorial input into forum bar decisions and, more fundamentally, because it is founded upon two misplaced premises. The forum bar is irredeemable and should be repealed

Extradition between the UK and Ireland is at risk because of Brexit. [Blog post]

Extradition between the UK and Ireland after Brexit will be particularly affected by a No-Deal Brexit. In this post, Paul Arnell (Robert Gordon University) and Gemma Davies (Northumbria University) bring a closer understanding of the problems on the horizon and ways of mitigating them

Julian Assange: how British extradition law works. [Newspaper article]

In this article, the authors assess the current situation regarding the extradition of Julian Assange from the UK and what the case demonstrates about UK extradition law