Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKES QC
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Friday, 20th January 2012
At half past 10
APPLICATION NOTICE
IHQ/11/0894 Patel v Unite


http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/hearing-lists/list-cause-rcj.htm

Thanks for that!

being unfamiliar with this sort of process..........

is the result available immediately online, is it published, or what?

anyone help this fule no?

Apparently there was a two hour hearing this morning on whether a forensic computer expert should be allowed to access the BASSA database.

Unite obviously have opposed the application.

Much of the discussion was about whether it would be possible to reconstruct the database despite the forum having been deleted.

The judge has reserved judgement and a decision is likely next week.

AYBABTU wrote:Apparentlyetc The judge has reserved judgement and a decision is likely next week.

thanks - interesting. i think the forum host has a legal duty to maintain records and keep them for six years, so are they saying that BASSA deleted the forum or that the forum host did so?

or is that a bit detailed ?

ummmm.... so let me see if I have this straight. Unite got asked to provide the names of the individuals who posted on the BASSA forum. They prevaricated and then claimed that the database got deleted. They further claim that there are no backups/archives/secure copies of the database. Moreover, they wish to prevent an expert in this field from recovering the data and rebuilding the database.

From a completely neutral standpoint, one would have to question why ? It also shows a remarkably poor grasp of computer technology to believe that such reconstruction was not possible. There have been enough cases on child porn etc. where the police have successfully reconstructed erased disks to sho what they previously held.

A suspicious individual might possibly think that the database was deleted after the court case had begun and hence the act was potentially an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Of course, a forensic examination would not only reveal the content of the files, but also the date and time of deletion along with the identity of the person who pressed the button. If this was on a hosted server, it is almost inconceivable that the hosting organisation did not have a backup cycle in place. There really is a very unpleasant odour associated with this whole affair that does not do Unite any credit. A cynic might be of the opinion that the union cannot afford to be seen to have allowed its largest branch to operate in a cavalier manner as it would cause many members to question the way that the union was being run.

Clearly there are more than a few who smell fish. Including we hope his Lordship.

What on earth are Unite doing? They surely are not trying to subvert the course of justice?

I don't believe Unite, like most organisations, would knowingly do anything that was illegal. What I find hard to understand is that at the end of July 2011, they issued a public apology that also indicated that the BASSA forum had been running but had recently been closed down. Now, if it came to a court case where a plaintiff was able to provide evidence from said forum, albeit in the form of screenshots, then any defendant would surely wish to be able to either refute any claim made, or be able to demonstrate that the context in which any comment might have been made. That requires the forum content to be available. If Unite are falling back on the notion that the inability to provide user information relating to specific postings somehow makes the problem go away, they are sadly mistaken. The forum owner is also the publisher (hence why some forums currently are being coy about allowing posts on some topics being made) The publisher has a responsibility to ensure that content of any forum is not libellous. The forum owner will be registered with the hosting organisation. Now, if the owner is a branch of a union, then it may follow that the branch and indeed the parent union are also liable. This may take the heat off the individual posters. It may be that the union believes that by publishing an apology (albeit one which admits no liability) it has done sufficient to avoid further legal action. This may, however, not be the case at all. A suit against a group of individuals would be likely to only result in modest costs, the argument being that the amount depends on the individuals' ability to pay. In a case where the defendant was a large organisation with significant funds at its disposal, the figures would almost inevitably be substantially higher.

COURT 11
Before HIS HONOUR JUDGE PARKES QC
(sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Thursday, 26th January 2012
At half past 10
FOR JUDGMENT
APPLICATION NOTICE
IHQ/11/0894 Patel v Unite

Judgement is here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/92.html

For those not inclined to wade through the detail, the upshot looks like Unite will be required to allow a mutually agreed forensic computer expert access to determine the identities of a number posters.

There is a degree of comment about Unite's apparent inability to produce this information willingly, as well as some surprise expressed at the claim that BASSA members had allowed others to use their userids and passwords to post comments.

There is an interesting note that 'without disclosure of their true identities, Mr Patel cannot bring civil or disciplinary proceedings against those responsible.' Sounds like even if the civil case doesn't proceed there are going to be some who will rue making defamatory allegations - can't see them surviving a disciplinary.

n.b. there is also a statement by Howard Beckett, the Director of Legal and Affiliated Services at Unite in the case details. Those minded to may google this and find Jerry Hick's letter to the union leadership regarding the gentleman's appointment.

we are legion wrote:Judgement is here etc

blimey, the machinations of the legal process are such a tedious thing sometimes!

the info will all be there unless a true expert has obliterated it in which case it would be mighty strange.

Given that Messrs Everard and Holley by their own admission are not experts and looking at the judge's comment on the expertise of the individual they were liaising with at the hosting company, it would be very interesting if the underlying data were successfully obliterated. Bear in mind that the expert witness for Patel stated that the underlying tables that record user activity are entirely separate to those that hold the comment text. Now, it would seem that no-one on the BASSA/Unite side really had a grasp of the structure of the forum that BASSA were using. Hardly surprising since they were buying an out of the box solution. Having now been alerted to the key tables it might place them in contempt of court if they subsequently deleted the content before allowing a mutually agreed expert to examine data.

On a side note, the head legal honcho at Unite has an interesting past. Jerry Hicks noted this on his appointment and wrote to the Unite leadership expressing dismay.

and i seem to remember someone protesting with vehemence that they couldn't wait for the 'truth' to come out in court?



one thing - the idea that members had been swapping usernames between themselves is a riot. not that i disbelieve it, of course.

How is it possible to "swap" usernames? If I wanted to post under "Carthorse" username, how could it be done? There is one with that name already on the forum. Presumably the original "Carthorse" would have to de-register that name and re-register with another name and then I could register with the now "vacant" "Carthorse" name. It seems a lot of trouble, to what end I wonder?

This is particularly the case when reading to court proceedings it seems that the originator can be identified no matter what name is being used.


By the way guys I will be out of contact, with a (very) variable internet connection for the next three weeks, don't think I've abandoned you.

I think what was being suggested was that an individual might register a given user name and password, but that they would let others post using it. Wasn't the defence offered by one of those who was sacked that postings were not made by him but by his brother who had obtained his(the sacked one) user name and password, or some such nonsense.

All rather improbable really. Does sound more like a work of fiction. Given that cabin crew use computer systems to arrange work, leave etc. it beggars belief that there are those who might have such a poor grasp of IT essentials, particularly around security. Bit like letting someone else have you online banking details. The only other explanation is a low level of intelligence, which would be rather worrying given the nature of the role.