By . Daily Mail Reporter . PUBLISHED: . 14:07 EST, 31 May 2012 . | . UPDATED: . 14:07 EST, 31 May 2012 . Dangerous: BNP member Joseph Owens, pictured here at 2003 local elections, is known to have a violent past . Police have been ordered to return private CCTV footage of a firebomb attack to a man with a violent past - despite fears it could help him find and kill the person responsible. Merseyside Police had argued for retaining footage belonging to Joseph 'Joey' Owens, who had gangster connections, to avoid 'indirectly assisting or encouraging' him to carry out a revenge attack for the arson attack on his mother's home. But today two High Court judges disagreed with the plea from police, and ruled the force's chief constable did not have power to retain the video from the CCTV system set up by Owens, who had shortly before the fire released a book exposing 'wannabe gangsters' and 'police informants' in Liverpool. Two judges rejected the chief . constable’s appeal against a magistrates’ court ruling that the footage . should be returned under the provisions of the 1897 Police (Property) Act. Sir John Thomas and Mr . Justice King described in a joint written judgment how the mother’s . house in Liverpool was deliberately set on fire in June 2008. She was . alone at the time but escaped without injury. The . video footage was seized as part of subsequent police investigations. It showed a petrol can at the front door and the person believed to have . caused the fire, though the images were unclear. Despite . all efforts, including enhancing the images, the police could not . identity who had set the fire, and the investigation was closed. Owens . applied to Liverpool City magistrates court for the return of the tape . in December 2008 but was opposed by the chief constable on the grounds . that he might inflict violent injury on any person that he identified on . it. Owens, a well-known gangland figure in Liverpool, has several violence-related convictions to his name and has even been charged with murder. In 1982 he served eight months behind bars for sending razor blades in the post to members of Liverpool's Jewish community. He was again jailed in 1994 for carrying CS gas and knuckle dusters while working as a clubland bouncer. In 1998 Owens was charged with the murder of a nightclub security boss, but the charge was eventually dropped when a key prosecution witness withdrew his evidence. Det Sgt Deborah Weir, who was in charge of the arson investigation, told the city court she believed that if Owens saw the tape he would 'seek revenge against the actual offender or a mistaken innocent third party', said the judges. She believed 'that person would be killed or seriously injured'. Owens had earlier identified to the police a possible suspect who had threatened him and asked to see the video as he thought he might be able to recognise the offender from his stance or gait. Merseyside Police had their claim to keep the CCTV footage rejected at London's High Court today . But city court Deputy District Judge Andrew Meachin ruled that, although he understood Det Sgt Weir’s concerns, they did not create special circumstances allowing the police to retain the footage under the provisions of the 1897 Act, which dealt with 'ownership and nothing else'. Upholding the district judge’s decision, the High Court judges said that, as a matter of fundamental constitutional principle 'the powers of the Executive to seize and retain goods' were carefully controlled by the courts. They had to balance the interests of society in finding out wrongdoers and repressing crime against the freedom of the individual. To justify taking an article from a person who had not been arrested or charged, it was necessary for that article to be returned as soon as a case was over or a decision was made not to go on with it. As a result, the chief constable was not entitled to retain the Owens tape under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The judges said they were prepared to assume that a court could refuse to order the police to return property if it was established that handing it back would indirectly assist or encourage crime. But there were no findings made by the district judge in the Owens case that supported such a conclusion. The judges ruled: 'It cannot be sufficient that the police reasonably suspect that (Owens) might use the tape to commit a criminal act, for that would give the Executive power to retain property without legislative or other authority. 'It can only be if the court itself is satisfied that the use of its process would in fact indirectly assist in or encourage a crime that the court could refuse to allow its processes to be used to that end. 'We therefore conclude that the appeal cannot succeed on the facts stated in the case for the reasons we have given. The video must therefore be returned.'
Merseyside Police to hand film back to violent BNP member Joseph Owens .
CCTV pictures showed firebomb attack on Owens' mother's house .
Officers feared giving CCTV back to Owens will help him find and kill arsonist in revenge attack .
But High Court rules police 'do not have the power' to retain video .
By . Daily Mail Reporter . PUBLISHED: . 14:07 EST, 31 May 2012 . | . UPDATED: . 14:07 EST, 31 May 2012 . Dangerous: BNP member Joseph Owens, pictured here at 2003 local elections, is known to have a violent past . Police have been ordered to return private CCTV footage of a firebomb attack to a man with a violent past - despite fears it could help him find and kill the person responsible. Merseyside Police had argued for retaining footage belonging to Joseph 'Joey' Owens, who had gangster connections, to avoid 'indirectly assisting or encouraging' him to carry out a revenge attack for the arson attack on his mother's home. But today two High Court judges disagreed with the plea from police, and ruled the force's chief constable did not have power to retain the video from the CCTV system set up by Owens, who had shortly before the fire released a book exposing 'wannabe gangsters' and 'police informants' in Liverpool. Two judges rejected the chief . constable’s appeal against a magistrates’ court ruling that the footage . should be returned under the provisions of the 1897 Police (Property) Act. Sir John Thomas and Mr . Justice King described in a joint written judgment how the mother’s . house in Liverpool was deliberately set on fire in June 2008. She was . alone at the time but escaped without injury. The . video footage was seized as part of subsequent police investigations. It showed a petrol can at the front door and the person believed to have . caused the fire, though the images were unclear. Despite . all efforts, including enhancing the images, the police could not . identity who had set the fire, and the investigation was closed. Owens . applied to Liverpool City magistrates court for the return of the tape . in December 2008 but was opposed by the chief constable on the grounds . that he might inflict violent injury on any person that he identified on . it. Owens, a well-known gangland figure in Liverpool, has several violence-related convictions to his name and has even been charged with murder. In 1982 he served eight months behind bars for sending razor blades in the post to members of Liverpool's Jewish community. He was again jailed in 1994 for carrying CS gas and knuckle dusters while working as a clubland bouncer. In 1998 Owens was charged with the murder of a nightclub security boss, but the charge was eventually dropped when a key prosecution witness withdrew his evidence. Det Sgt Deborah Weir, who was in charge of the arson investigation, told the city court she believed that if Owens saw the tape he would 'seek revenge against the actual offender or a mistaken innocent third party', said the judges. She believed 'that person would be killed or seriously injured'. Owens had earlier identified to the police a possible suspect who had threatened him and asked to see the video as he thought he might be able to recognise the offender from his stance or gait. Merseyside Police had their claim to keep the CCTV footage rejected at London's High Court today . But city court Deputy District Judge Andrew Meachin ruled that, although he understood Det Sgt Weir’s concerns, they did not create special circumstances allowing the police to retain the footage under the provisions of the 1897 Act, which dealt with 'ownership and nothing else'. Upholding the district judge’s decision, the High Court judges said that, as a matter of fundamental constitutional principle 'the powers of the Executive to seize and retain goods' were carefully controlled by the courts. They had to balance the interests of society in finding out wrongdoers and repressing crime against the freedom of the individual. To justify taking an article from a person who had not been arrested or charged, it was necessary for that article to be returned as soon as a case was over or a decision was made not to go on with it. As a result, the chief constable was not entitled to retain the Owens tape under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The judges said they were prepared to assume that a court could refuse to order the police to return property if it was established that handing it back would indirectly assist or encourage crime. But there were no findings made by the district judge in the Owens case that supported such a conclusion. The judges ruled: 'It cannot be sufficient that the police reasonably suspect that (Owens) might use the tape to commit a criminal act, for that would give the Executive power to retain property without legislative or other authority. 'It can only be if the court itself is satisfied that the use of its process would in fact indirectly assist in or encourage a crime that the court could refuse to allow its processes to be used to that end. 'We therefore conclude that the appeal cannot succeed on the facts stated in the case for the reasons we have given. The video must therefore be returned.'
2012 . Dangerous: BNP member Joseph Owens, fears it could help him find and kill the person responsible. Merseyside Police had argued for carry out a revenge attack for the arson attack on his mother's home. But today two High Court ruled the force's chief constable did not have power to retain the video from the CCTV system judgment how the mother’s . house in Liverpool