Police face £300,000 legal bill for misuse of codes

West Yorkshire Police acted in breach of confidence when it published on a website a list of codes or “addresses” which could be used to access data stored on mobile phones, Mr Justice Arnold ruled.

The list was almost identical to one compiled by Forensic Telecommunications Services (FTS), a digital forensics company which supports police forces across the UK, a trial at the High Court in London was told.

The judge found that an MI5 officer, who had an FTS program installed on his computer, had given a West Yorkshire detective “close to 30 pairs” of addresses while they worked together on a counter-terrorism operation, which eventually foiled a jihadi plot involving teenagers from Bradford.

But, although he found that similarities between the lists “do raise an inference of copying”, the judge refused an application by FTS that the force had infringed its copyright.

He said the Kent-based company held the addresses in a database which was not covered by copyright law.

The judgment, handed down yesterday, brings to an end a costly five-year battle between West Yorkshire and the company, which had previously supported the force in its investigation into the 2005 murder of Pc Sharon Beshenivsky in Bradford.

The judge concluded: “I cannot part from this case without expressing my concern that it should have come this far.

“I fear that the costs will have been out of all proportion to what is at stake.

“That is regrettable in any litigation, but particularly so where public money is involved.”

FTS managing director Shaun Hipgrave said West Yorkshire would be asked to pay 90 per cent of the company’s costs – estimated to be in the region of £189,000.

He said the force’s legal costs were understood to be about £130,000, and a decision on the award of damages would be made at a future hearing.

The company had resorted to legal action with “great reluctance” to protect its confidential information, Mr Hipgrave said, and had “sought repeatedly to bring the matter to an amicable resolution”.

“Who takes their customer to court?” he asked. “It’s madness, but we were left with no choice.”

The force insisted that it had been transparent throughout and had suggested to FTS that an independent review of the software systems should be conducted.

“Had they agreed to this in 2006,” Assistant Chief Constable John Parkinson said, “this matter may never have ended up in court.”

Mr Parkinson said the force was considering the implications of the court’s ruling. It had tried to resolve the matter without the expense of legal proceedings but it was necessary to challenge FTS’s claims.