Admissible Evidence?

[Brizzle]

Hi, I'm not sure this is the correct forum to ask this, but is FoI data acquired under a nom de plume acceptable in court?

[Caspar]

Re: Admissible Evidence?

I know very little about court procedure, but I would have thought that any evidence which could be considered directly relevant to the case would be admissable.

[leclerc]

Re: Admissible Evidence?

Is the information in the public domain?

[Brizzle]

Re: Admissible Evidence?

Thanks for your replies. The information will be in the public domain if the request is successful, and is directly relevant to the case.

[leclerc]

Re: Admissible Evidence?

Thanks for your replies. The information will be in the public domain if the request is successful, and is directly relevant to the case.

If it's under an FOI request then there is nothing that stops you from using it. Who is to say who passed the info on plus by definition it is Freedom of Information.

[Brizzle]

Re: Admissible Evidence?

That's my thinking also - however the case has it's objectors who are trying to undermine it and it's been suggested that, because using a nom de plume is 'technically' illegal for FoIs, the information thus provided is inadmissible.

Unfortunately I can't see anything definitive either way within the standard FoI rules.

[leclerc]

Re: Admissible Evidence?

That's my thinking also - however the case has it's objectors who are trying to undermine it and it's been suggested that, because using a nom de plume is 'technically' illegal for FoIs, the information thus provided is inadmissible.

Unfortunately I can't see anything definitive either way within the standard FoI rules.

Do you have the response to the FOI request?



EDIT: is it consumer issues related?

[Caspar]

Re: Admissible Evidence?

I cannot see if the information is available publically through an FOI why it should make any difference. Is there any reason why you can't make this request in your own name, or get another "real" person to make it on your behalf and pass the information on to you. That way everything is 100% above board.

[Brizzle]

Re: Admissible Evidence?

People associated with this case have had bricks through their windows and cars keyed, hence anonymity is preferred!

This particular case isn't consumer-related I'm afraid, but I'm hoping it might clarify the position for future cases.

As far as I'm aware, only evidence like hearsay and phone-tapping are classed as inadmissible, so I was seeking a general clarification.

Thank you for all your responses.

[leclerc]

Re: Admissible Evidence?

People associated with this case have had bricks through their windows and cars keyed, hence anonymity is preferred!

This particular case isn't consumer-related I'm afraid, but I'm hoping it might clarify the position for future cases.

As far as I'm aware, only evidence like hearsay and phone-tapping are classed as inadmissible, so I was seeking a general clarification.

Thank you for all your responses.

You need to find a forum which deals with this kind of thing and simply post it within the public domain

[Gorang]

Re: Admissible Evidence?

In my view of this

if the information is in public domain and the prosicuting/defence solicitor recieved it through the mail and it helps their case, then I'm sure they would use it no matter if it came in the post anonymously with a note telling them where the info can be found with a simple FOI request if they need proof of where it came from

hope this helps a bit

[strangewayofsavin]

Re: Admissible Evidence?

Hi, I'm not sure this is the correct forum to ask this, but is FoI data acquired under a nom de plume acceptable in court?

Agree with lerc through the foi, the evidence is submissable. nom de plume is usually used to prosecute an author or seudonym for breech of copyright etc. However if the non named is the plaintiff/accuser then its a different ball game, it would be like Mickey mouse V Disney productions. In most cases the accussed would have the right to know who was accussing, encase there was other reasons for the charge.
Excuse if I have the wrong end of the stick, but your post is rather cryptic