Why such controversy over prank?

[Tiberius]

I gave the leverson ininquiry as a poor example ........ admited. And maybe I again failed to properly express myself.

What i wanted to point out is: that ignoring the law whilest trying to gain privat information can lead to bad consequences.
The recent phone hacking scandal is for me a perfect example of this.

The point is, they weren't ignoring the law. The phone hacking scandal is not a good example, because the journalists who hacked the phones were in the UK, and thus were breaking UK law directly. This tragedy involved two Australian DJs, who are not under the jurisdiction of UK law.

I didn`t demand for a regulatory body or anything. I would simply suggest that laws - are inforced - which they should have been, but werent during the time in which criminal activity amongst tabloid journalists was ongoing.

I do have no clue which laws will apply if this case should be investigated.

I think everyone thinks that laws should be enforced; it doesn't really need saying. Laws also depend heavily on the context. Killing someone by accident and killing someone on purpose result in the same result (the death of a person), but have completely different contexts and result in completely different sentences. Likewise, these DJs did not intend to break any laws; they were trying to make a prank call. They weren't even after personal information; it was all a big joke, and they never expected to actually end up talking to a nurse about the princess. In this context, they did very little to nothing wrong at all.

Countery to popular belief, international law does not provide laws and standards for every single aspect of criminal justice for every nation (that would undermine a nations sovereignty and therefor violate the UN charta). Legal matters such as extradition and cross border court and police cooperation are sett into existance and their limitations determined through treaties via diplomatic negotiations. So if there will be legal action - then it`s course and whos responsibility it is will be are determined by the legal treaties between the UK and Australia.

I never said international law covers every single aspect of criminal justice. What matters is if they broke any laws in Australia, as the crime would have been committed in Australia. I realise that in the age of digital communication it's hard to set the boundaries, but multiple court cases have shown that even if you commit a crime against some foreign country using phone lines or the Internet, you are usually only charged and sentenced according to the country you were in at the time.