Editing Operation Ore (section)

==Legal challenges==
{{Sex and the law}}
After 2003, Operation Ore came under closer scrutiny, with police forces in the UK being criticised for their handling of the operation. The most common criticism was that they failed to determine whether or not the owners of credit cards in Landslide's database actually accessed any sites containing child porn, unlike in the US, where it was determined in advance whether or not credit card subscribers had purchased child porn. Investigative journalist [[Duncan Campbell (journalist, born 1952)|Duncan Campbell]] exposed these flaws in a series of articles in 2005 and 2007.<ref name="Flawed"/><ref>{{cite news |title=Operation Ore exposed |url=http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/74690/operation-ore-exposed/page3.html |publisher=PCPro |date=1 July 2005 |access-date=23 April 2007 |author=Campbell, Duncan |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090623014629/http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/74690/operation-ore-exposed/page3.html |archive-date=23 June 2009 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://ore-exposed.obu-investigators.com/PC_PRO_Operation_Ore_Exposed_2.html |author=Campbell, Duncan |title=Sex, Lies and the Missing Videotape |publisher=PCPro |date=April 2007 |access-date=23 April 2007}}</ref>

Many of the charges at the Landslide-affiliated sites were made using stolen credit card information, and the police arrested the real owners of the credit cards, not the viewers. Thousands of credit card charges were made where there was no access to a site or access only to a dummy site. When the police checked, seven years after Operation Ore commenced, they found 54,348 occurrences of stolen credit card information in the Landslide database. The British police failed to provide this information to the defendants and, in some cases, implied that they had checked and found no evidence of credit card fraud when no such check had been done. Because of the nature of the charges, children were removed from the homes immediately. In the two years it took the police to determine that thousands had been falsely accused, over 100 children had been removed from their homes and denied any unsupervised time with their fathers.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/19/operation_ore_fraud/|title=Operation Ore: evidence of massive credit card fraud|work=theregister.co.uk}}</ref> The arrests also led to an estimated 33 suicides by 2007.<ref name="pcpro.co.uk" />

One man was charged when the sole "suspicious" image in his possession was of young-looking—but adult—actress Melissa Ashley.<ref>{{cite news|first=Liam|last=Clarke|url=https://www.thetimes.com/world/ireland-world/article/child-porn-star-backs-army-major-rz2k5q2td5w|title='Child' porn star backs Army major|work=[[The Sunday Times]]|date=29 May 2005}}</ref> Also arrested were [[Massive Attack]]'s [[Robert Del Naja]] (later cleared)<ref name=TIMES /> and [[The Who]]'s guitarist [[Pete Townshend]], who was cautioned by the police after acknowledging credit card access to the Landslide website. Duncan Campbell later stated in ''[[PC Pro]]'' magazine that their credit card charges and IP addresses were traced through the Landslide site, and both were found to have accessed sites which had nothing to do with child pornography.<ref name="ore-exposed.obu-investigators.com" /> The actor and writer [[Chris Langham]] was among those convicted.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559214/Langham-Caught-in-Operation-Ores-net.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080119102433/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/02/nlangham202.xml|archive-date=19 January 2008|title=Langham: Caught in Operation Ore's net|last=Sapsted|first=David|date=2 August 2007|work=The Daily Telegraph|location=London|access-date=2 August 2007}}</ref>

Independent investigators later obtained both the database records and video of the Landslide raid. When this information was presented in a UK court, Michael Mead of the United States Postal Service contradicted his US testimony under oath regarding several details relating to the investigation. As a result of the errors exposed in the cases, some people arrested in Operation Ore filed a group action lawsuit in 2006 against the detectives behind Operation Ore, alleging false arrest.<ref>{{cite news |title=Accused in child porn inquiry to sue police |url=http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1362272006 |newspaper=[[The Scotsman]] |first=Michael |last=Howie |date=15 September 2006 |access-date=23 April 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071203111858/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1362272006 |archive-date=3 December 2007 }}</ref>

After Campbell's articles appeared, the independent computer expert Jim Bates, who analysed the hard drives, was charged and convicted of four counts of making false statements and one count of perjury regarding his qualifications<ref name="bexpert">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7340997.stm|title=BBC NEWS – UK – England – London – Expert sentenced for court claims|publisher=BBC|date=10 April 2008 }}</ref> and barred from appearing as an expert witness. Bates's judgement has been called into question on other matters.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/mar/23/ukcrime.law |location=London |work=The Guardian |first=Jamie |last=Doward |title=How police put their faith in the 'expert' witness who was a fraud |date=23 March 2008}}</ref> Bates was later arrested for possession of indecent images during his Operation Ore investigations.<ref name="barest">{{cite news|url=https://www.theregister.com/2008/09/17/ore_bates_arrest/|title=Paedo case expert Jim Bates arrested on child porn charge|last=Fae|first=Jane|date=17 September 2008|work=The Register|access-date=30 December 2009}}</ref> The search of Bates' home was ruled unlawful, as the police had applied for the search warrant using the wrong section of [[Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984|PACE]] and were unable to examine any of the material seized from his house.<ref>{{cite news|last=O'Neill|first=Sean|date=16 June 2009|title=Police chief Colin Port forced to back down in hard drive stand off|newspaper=[[The Times]] |language=en|url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-chief-colin-port-forced-to-back-down-in-hard-drive-stand-off-wpp2ng3ngzd|issn=0140-0460}}</ref><ref>[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/942.html Bates & Anor v Chief Constable of the Avon and Somerset Police & Anor &#91;2009&#93; EWHC 942 (Admin) (8 May 2009)]</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-chief-colin-port-risks-career-by-refusing-to-return-child-abuse-data-7lgxxf6gj9m|title=Police chief Colin Port risks career by refusing to return child abuse data|last=O'Neill|first=Sean|date=27 May 2009|work=The Times|access-date=16 January 2010}}</ref>

[[CEOP]] and its chief executive, Jim Gamble, were accused of using vague terms which do not have a recognised meaning within either child protection or law enforcement when they defended the operation.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/may/17/guardianweeklytechnologysection2 |work=The Guardian |location=London |title=When will we know whether Operation Ore was a success? |first=Charles |last=Arthur |date=17 May 2007 |access-date=20 May 2010}}</ref>

On 6 December 2010, senior Court of Appeal judges rejected the appeal of Anthony O'Shea, stating that they were "entirely confident that the appellant was rightly convicted."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.southyorkshiretimes.co.uk/news/police_welcome_rejection_of_child_porn_conviction_appeal_1_2835383|title=Police welcome rejection of child porn conviction appeal|date=4 January 2011|work=South Yorkshire Times}}{{Dead link|date=May 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> The judgement states in relation to the appellant's assertions regarding the claim that his IP address had been disguised: "These suggestions are fanciful in the extreme. The appellant's theory (for it is no more than such) that he [Mr O'Shea] was the victim of the machinations of a fraudulent webmaster is, in our view, pure speculation."<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/o-shea-judgment-06122010.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=11 December 2010 |archive-date=24 December 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101224081422/http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/o-shea-judgment-06122010.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="elreg">{{cite web|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/06/operation_ore|title=Judges reject Operation Ore appeal|author=Jane Fae|website=[[The Register]]|date=6 December 2010}}</ref> Jim Bates, an expert witness and critic of Operation Ore, was criticised for misleading comments during the hearing.<ref name="bexpert" /> The appeal had been considered to be a landmark case where success could have led to many of the other convictions achieved as a result of Ore being overturned.<ref name="barest" />