Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:26 pm
Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:34 pm
Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:42 pm
Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:49 pm
Igovernor wrote:I did not know that anyone apart from the police can be issued with a search warrant!
Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:01 pm
64JACK wrote:Igovernor wrote:I did not know that anyone apart from the police can be issued with a search warrant!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_warrant
More to come from this where Moody is concerned.
Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:02 pm
Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:06 pm
Igovernor wrote:Only police can get search warrants so how did a legal firm get hold of all the texts and paperwork in Moody's house. A police officer has to show justification to a judge/magistrate before a warrant is issued, so unless the legal firm already had evidence of a criminal act to show the police how? also if the police had the warrant, there is no way that the results of said warrant would be shown to the legal firm, very strange ???????
Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:07 pm
KWest wrote:Something tells me moody will see jail time over this. Malky will just be left ruined.
Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:24 pm
Igovernor wrote:I did not know that anyone apart from the police can be issued with a search warrant!
Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:33 pm
xajax wrote:Igovernor wrote:I did not know that anyone apart from the police can be issued with a search warrant!
There are a number of other agencies which may obtain search warrants, like the TV Licence Records Office, but only if they are able to convince a magistrate that a criminal act may be taking place. In this case what has taken place must be so criminal that it justifies the issuing of a search warrant. If that was so, any information gathered would be subject to sub judice rules and could not be released into the public domain. In this case the information has been published, so no criminal proceedings appear to be anticipated.
I'm sure that all that has happened is above board, but what we've seen so far does not seem to add up, and the we have heard must be the result of a police fishing expedition.
Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:44 pm
Welsh Exile wrote:
What do you mean by a police fishing expedition ?? Just asking as not sure by that last comment if you think there will or won't be criminal charges brought against either of them ?
Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:56 pm
Forever Blue wrote:Igovernor wrote:Only police can get search warrants so how did a legal firm get hold of all the texts and paperwork in Moody's house. A police officer has to show justification to a judge/magistrate before a warrant is issued, so unless the legal firm already had evidence of a criminal act to show the police how? also if the police had the warrant, there is no way that the results of said warrant would be shown to the legal firm, very strange ???????
Tan paid private investigators,who built up a case on Ian Moody for Fraud,which was then presented to the High Court for a search warrant,Moody's home was raided,laptops and phones etc etc taken in and that was how all this came about on Malky.
Tan spent £1 million on this
Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:00 pm
Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:39 pm
jon1959 wrote:It was a Search Order not a Search Warrant. Issued by the High Court who accepted the application met the criteria.
http://www.out-law.com/topics/dispute-r ... nd-litigat ion/injuctions/search-orders/
In order to obtain a Search Order:
Strong evidence must be shown to the court that:
- the damage caused, or likely to be caused, if a search order is not made is very serious for the party applying for the order;
- the other party has incriminating documents or goods in its possession;
- there is a real possibility that that party will destroy or corrupt the documents or goods if given notice of the application.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/search-orders.htm
An undertaking not to use items seized for collateral purposes will also be implied against the claimant
Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:17 am
Forever Blue wrote:Igovernor wrote:Only police can get search warrants so how did a legal firm get hold of all the texts and paperwork in Moody's house. A police officer has to show justification to a judge/magistrate before a warrant is issued, so unless the legal firm already had evidence of a criminal act to show the police how? also if the police had the warrant, there is no way that the results of said warrant would be shown to the legal firm, very strange ???????
Tan paid private investigators,who built up a case on Ian Moody for Fraud,which was then presented to the High Court for a search warrant,Moody's home was raided,laptops and phones etc etc taken in and that was how all this came about on Malky.
Tan spent £1 million on this
Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:29 am
Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:53 am
xajax wrote:I've had a look at it and there is a section which saysAn undertaking not to use items seized for collateral purposes will also be implied against the claimant
It seems to imply no "fishing expeditions" allowed. So if, for example, someone granted a search order to look for evidence of, lets say fraud, and they found counterfeit goods or an illegal satellite receiver, or even dodgy text messages and emails, the way I read it, they would not be able to use that information to discredit the accused.
Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:58 am
xajax wrote:I've had a look at it and there is a section which saysAn undertaking not to use items seized for collateral purposes will also be implied against the claimant
It seems to imply no "fishing expeditions" allowed. So if, for example, someone granted a search order to look for evidence of, lets say fraud, and they found counterfeit goods or an illegal satellite receiver, or even dodgy text messages and emails, the way I read it, they would not be able to use that information to discredit the accused.
Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:47 am