If the accuser’s name can be kept secret, then so can the accused.
I’m with Daws on this. No publicity until charge. The pre-charge publicity some people have received has been horrendous, with no charges ever bought. Look at Cliff Richard.
I still think it should be post conviction, because charged just means the old bill think we’ve got enough info to go with it and it could still all fall apart and be shown otherwise. How many times have there been stories where someone was charged with something and then ‘released’. The bloke who was supposed to have pushed the woman into the road in Putney a few months ago, was arrested after CCTV footage was released after the old bill hadn’t got anywhere after a huge response from the public, but was in the USA at the time. Now if he had been questioned about it and shown he wasn’t in the country, OK thanks for your help no harm done. But no, arrested, name all over the place, police shown to be lacking and released. But in the meantime this bloke has been put through all the anguish of his name across all media. It worth bearing in mind that in the modern era, as things go on t’ internet anyone anywhere can see it almost instantaneously, unlike say 15 years ago it might have made local news or newspaper but unlikely to be international.
Whereas a conviction should mean we’ve done the leg work, we’ve built the case, it’s been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that this happened and as a result they will be sentenced.
The problem is as soon as the words child and abuse end up in the same sentence, people seem to lose their heads. These should have reporting restrictions on them. I also think that whatever your age if you ‘get done’ your name should be published. Another story the other day, one lad stabs another over a girl and kills him. He gets done for manslaughter and not named, but the victim was named.
Talking utter rubbish again.
- The police don’t decide to charge in those cases, the CPS decide on the full code test if there’s enough evidence to support a realistic prospect of conviction. Then authorise charges.
- In the jogger/pusher case, the police statement didn’t say who it was. The blokes own solicitor released a statement naming him. He was ID by someone and they started enquiries, it was early days and thebloke provided a statement and then evidenc of his alibi. Police not lacking there - it’s called following a line of enquiry.
2 Likes
They might not authorise the charge but they arrest and that’s when names seem to come into the public domain. I still think that unless there is a conviction, people shouldn’t be named and you won’t alter my view on that. If they are named those doing the naming should be convicted.
So what you going to do have secret courts? As that’s the only way you will keep names private by having trials behind closed doors.
Also where there is a course of conduct it’s helpful to have multiple victims and witnesses at the trial, which is somewhat difficult when no one knows it’s taking place.
As has already been stated the naming generally takes place before charge because people see the person get arrested or as is the case with the jogger case because his solicitors named him in a press release.
I don’t think that there will ever be a happy balance. The only factor that tends to give an 'advantage" to having a name out in the public is that other victims might then come forward; this would obviously be more beneficial pre-trial.
And during a trial, if a person has an MO (which most predators do) then this will be replicated across the range of their offending.
This has led to lots of the more recent historical trials taking place and people being found guilty. Victims completely unconnected and years apart coming forward with eerily similar stories.
How do they keep victims’ names secret now?
Not mentioned in court documents and give evidence from behind a screen.
There you go then.
That’s still secret courts, we aren’t some South American Junta. The next step is “do away with the jury to keep things secret”
1 Like
Why? What’s the difference between hiding the identity of the accused, and hiding the identity of the accuser?
Protection of witnesses from intimidation by associates of the offender. It happens. Often why cases collapse.
Err, we definitely know their names. It would be a bit difficult to question someone politely without it. (Not to mention so many other difficulties which trying to conduct a trial without the complainant’s name being even mentioned would cause!)
They keep the names secret by placing reporting restrictions upon the press who can’t report the names and we restrict the public through the threat of prosecution.
I’ve done jury service and unless it has changed you are not permitted to talk to anyone about any case you are involved in, unless you want 3 square meals in one HMs establishments. This was made crystal clear.
I accept that the gossips will say things, but this is where the media needs to play its part and not look to fill column inches or websites. The problem we have in uncontrolled internet media streams is that it seems OK just to put things out there to fill space. As .little as 10 years ago many things we see now would have remained local as the internet side of things wasn’t as “developed” as it is now and lazy people doing things in a lazy way.
I thought giving evidence behind screens was already established and I think there are many cases which don’t need public scrutiny. As for holding more court sessions in camera why not, I think there are more times when this would be preferential than loads of media interference. Do you really think many of the high profile individuals in recent years have gone to trial after months of speculation and stories in the media? TBH I don’t think any of them have been worth the money or court time, in terms of fairness. When I did my jury service the case I heard, I hadn’t heard of any of the people or knew anything about them until that point. Could you honestly say that anyone in a jury wouldn’t have heard of some of the people mentioned and or their story?
As for people coming forward after the fact, where have they been for the preceding time and why hadn’t they come forward until now. I’ve said it before we need a statute of limitations, which means things are fresher in people’s minds, than going back 20, 30+ years. There have been too many cases where OAPs are being, convicted and sentenced for things that they did decades ago and many of these probably not fit to stand trial.
1 Like
You seem very passionate about this Teflon. Something you want to get off your chest? Come on, we’re all friends here. Before you do, I’ll just remind you that, you do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention something you later … etc etc.
I’m listening. Tell me all
4 Likes
We lasted nearly a year without one of these stories surfacing…
How on earth did he manage to remain an instructor after the first police contact?
1 Like
What is the world coming too??!
It’s the same as it ever was - noncing has been a part of humanity since long before sapiens appeared on the scene.