Another file-sharing case dropped before trial
Crown prosecutors have dropped a file-sharing case rather than take the evidence before a judge.
George Cartledge, the administrator of online forum Filesoup, was accused of distributing or authorising distribution of copyright material and arrested in July 2009, according to David Cook from Cartledge's solicitors Burrows Bussin.
After prosecutors dropped the case in Bristol Crown Court today, a spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said: “The CPS reviewed the file in accordance with the code for Crown Prosecutors, and no longer considered there was a realistic prospect of conviction. Accordingly, we offered no evidence in court.”
The news echoes a previous case, also defended by Burrows Bussin. Last year, the CPS dropped a case against a 17-year-old accused of sharing music via the OiNK forum, saying it wasn't in the public interest to continue.
It also brings to mind ACS Law, which tried to drop a set of file-sharing cases before the Patents County Court in London last month.
Cook counts the discontinuance as a win for his firm's client. “It’s the kind of thing that people don’t fully appreciate," he said. "If they discontinue before the trial, it means that they haven’t got the stamina to put it before a jury. This is better than him being found not guilty – this is the CPS believing that he won’t be found guilty.”
Cook said his firm had six applications before the court, regarding "defects" in Cartledge's case.
"We believe there are a lot of things wrong with this case," Cook told PC Pro, saying the prosecution hadn't initially been sure if Cartledge should be charged as a business or which charges should be laid. "It’s a surprise to me that they’ve continued for as long as they have."
“It’s right that copyright holders should be afforded the protection of the court, they’ve just been going about it in entirely the wrong way," Cook added.
FACT involvement
Many of the cases flaws, Cook said, stem from the involvement in the investigation of FACT - the Federation Against Copyright Theft, which is funded by the US and UK film industry.
"By and large, FACT goes into markets and picks up a load of dodgy DVDs with the police, point out which ones are dodgy to the police, and the police seize them. It’s all above board," explained Cook.
However, problems crop up when the investigations move online, where evidence collection is more complicated. "In this case, the police seized these computers, they didn't ever take the computers into the police station, they merely gave them to FACT," Cook said.
"FACT then took the computers and did a forensic report on them, and gave the police the reports – the police didn’t ever independently check what they were saying," Cook said.
Cook believes that once FACT alerts authorities to a copyright infringement, it should no longer be involved in the investigation. “It’s a public function of the police to investigate these things on their own, the police are under a duty to investigate," he said.
FACT's head of communications Eddy Levitan wouldn't directly comment on the Cartledge case, but said there have indeed been successful prosecutions of illegal file-sharers based on his group's evidence.
Ongoing investigations
The current process leaves prosecutors unable to secure a win against illegal file-sharing, Cook claimed. “In terms of a successful prosecution for file-sharing, there haven’t been any.”
Despite today's discontinuance, Cook says his firm expects more such cases to arise; Levitan said FACT has other investigations ongoing.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/365500/anot ... fore-trial
No bloody wonder they're struggling to get convictions if that's true
