• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Car Incident in Liverpool

Mojo said:
Actually, it looks as if sub judice runs from when the accused is arrested:
www.pinsentmasons.com

The sub judice rule and contempt of court

The sub judice rule regulates the publication of matters which are under consideration by the court.
www.pinsentmasons.com www.pinsentmasons.com
Click to expand...


Thank you and in future, please take note of words such as 'presumably', as everything I write has an exact meaning. Also context is important. This was in the context of SKY News being first AFAIAA of showing the actual footage of the moving car to any great length.



.
 
Vixen said:
And in which way is that controversial, given it was only uploaded by SKY News a couple of days after the event and Merseyside Police had asked people not to share?

What is your gripe?
Click to expand...
Do keep up: we're talking about your claim that you "did not say, one that the police would have to have cleared a non-police video a UK broadcaster decided to run" and your complaint that Darat was putting words into your mouth. You in fact said that Sky's footage was "presumably cleared with the police as OK to show." That [ETA: i.e. the word "presumably"] clearly implies that the footage would have to be cleared with the police.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No, I did not say, one that the police would have to have cleared a non-police video a UK broadcaster decided to run.

Please do not put words in my mouth and please quote me in full context. Thanks.


.
Click to expand...
"Merseyside Police specifically asked people not to share footage ... So ... you won't find that same footage in the national press because of contempt of court laws."

"Won't find" means you think there is no way the press can use the footage while the police request is in effect. This is not at all true. Contempt of court laws apply regardless of what the police say. It's contempt of court, not contempt of police. A press decision on whether to show footage depends on their editorial standards and their own legal counsel. IMO, It's unlikely legal counsel would advise against showing CCTV of a public incident, since there's nothing inherent in that which would undermine a fair trial. If there is more graphic footage out there, it's my guess that broadcasters and press simply don't want to show it because it's horrific. The seems to be in line with all similar incidents around the world where UK broadcasters sanitise what they show.

What legal counsel would advise against is editing the footage deceptively to support guilt or innocence. That would be contemptuous of the legal process. UK broadcasters generally do not do this, but social media posters do, and that is why the police issue these requests and warnings to the public.

Full quote, so you can see I only elided clauses that don't change the overall meaning:

"Merseyside Police specifically asked people not to share footage being circulated on social media as it might prejudice a future trial. So whilst you can go to X-twitter and see the final footage of the car's journey, you won't find that same footage in the national press because of contempt of court laws."
 
Darat said:
He was only charged yesterday. The video released before then would in no way or shape be subject to contempt of court.
Click to expand...
nope, it applies "once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged".
 
Shrinker said:
"Merseyside Police specifically asked people not to share footage ... So ... you won't find that same footage in the national press because of contempt of court laws."

"Won't find" means you think there is no way the press can use the footage while the police request is in effect. This is not at all true. Contempt of court laws apply regardless of what the police say. It's contempt of court, not contempt of police. A press decision on whether to show footage depends on their editorial standards and their own legal counsel. IMO, It's unlikely legal counsel would advise against showing CCTV of a public incident, since there's nothing inherent in that which would undermine a fair trial. If there is more graphic footage out there, it's my guess that broadcasters and press simply don't want to show it because it's horrific. The seems to be in line with all similar incidents around the world where UK broadcasters sanitise what they show.

What legal counsel would advise against is editing the footage deceptively to support guilt or innocence. That would be contemptuous of the legal process. UK broadcasters generally do not do this, but social media posters do, and that is why the police issue these requests and warnings to the public.

Full quote, so you can see I only elided clauses that don't change the overall meaning:

"Merseyside Police specifically asked people not to share footage being circulated on social media as it might prejudice a future trial. So whilst you can go to X-twitter and see the final footage of the car's journey, you won't find that same footage in the national press because of contempt of court laws."
Click to expand...


Which is why it was my opinion that SKY okayed it with Merseyside Police for showing, which several other news outlets have followed, albeit heavily pixelated. That is my considered opinion. It's my view someone at SKY asked if it was OK, even if was only out of courtesy. If they did not, they did not. Why did I think this? Because there was quite a time lapse before the video was shown. They could have released it immediately if all that was needed was their own discretion. There is hardly anything controversial about this given the footage showed an ongoing crime scene.

If you have a different view that is fine, too.
Edited by zooterkin: 
Removed spurious space at end.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


I have split stuff about the revealing of names and footage to

New Thread.

In trials and errors

It is off topic here

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
www.bbc.co.uk

Liverpool fan Daniel Barr stopped Paul Doyle driving further into parade crowd

Daniel Barr jumped into action when he saw a car striking pedestrians at Liverpool's victory parade.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Doyle gets 21 years, but interestingly, nobody poring over all those videos noticed a bystander getting into the car and stopping it. Very bold move and I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of a court like this giving a bravery award with cash, but it’s very deserved.

Regarding the sentencing I wish we’d learned a bit more about his state of mind. He didn’t put up any explanation in court and the prosecutors’ road rage explanation seems a little cartoonish (as they often do).
 
Shrinker said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Liverpool fan Daniel Barr stopped Paul Doyle driving further into parade crowd

Daniel Barr jumped into action when he saw a car striking pedestrians at Liverpool's victory parade.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Doyle gets 21 years, but interestingly, nobody poring over all those videos noticed a bystander getting into the car and stopping it. Very bold move and I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of a court like this giving a bravery award with cash, but it’s very deserved.
Click to expand...
The bravery of the bystander was not a matter before the court. Nor does it even constitute a tryable issue, as far as I can tell. Nor are criminal courts typically (ever?) empowered to hand out cash prizes for community service, sua sponte.

As nice as it would be for this guy to receive some more recognition and appreciation for his good deed, I can't imagine any world in which a criminal court adjudicating such a matter would make any sense at all.
 
theprestige said:
The bravery of the bystander was not a matter before the court. Nor does it even constitute a tryable issue, as far as I can tell. Nor are criminal courts typically (ever?) empowered to hand out cash prizes for community service, sua sponte.

As nice as it would be for this guy to receive some more recognition and appreciation for his good deed, I can't imagine any world in which a criminal court adjudicating such a matter would make any sense at all.
Click to expand...
Apologies for not linking to an article which covers the award but there’s a little about it at the link below.

I haven’t heard if it before but I like it. I don’t see why such cases have to have exclusively negative products.

www.independent.co.uk

‘Hero’ ex-soldier who ended Paul Doyle’s Liverpool rampage says ‘I’d do it again’

Daniel Barr said he did not think his actions were ‘anything special’ after bringing the attack to a halt
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

“And after sentencing Doyle, the recorder of Liverpool, Judge Andrew Menary KC, praised Mr Barr’s “outstandingly brave” actions and awarded him the High Sheriff’s Award for bravery, which includes a monetary award of £250.”
 
I remember seeing a few times a judge reward someone for their brave actions and praise them in their summing up.
 
Last edited:
Shrinker said:
Apologies for not linking to an article which covers the award but there’s a little about it at the link below.

I haven’t heard if it before but I like it. I don’t see why such cases have to have exclusively negative products.

www.independent.co.uk

‘Hero’ ex-soldier who ended Paul Doyle’s Liverpool rampage says ‘I’d do it again’

Daniel Barr said he did not think his actions were ‘anything special’ after bringing the attack to a halt
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

“And after sentencing Doyle, the recorder of Liverpool, Judge Andrew Menary KC, praised Mr Barr’s “outstandingly brave” actions and awarded him the High Sheriff’s Award for bravery, which includes a monetary award of £250.”
Click to expand...
Andy_Ross said:
I remember seeing a few rims a judge reward someone for their brave actions and praise them in their summing up.
Click to expand...

It seems the judge made the award in his ceremonial role of High Sheriff, not in his role as criminal court judge, nor as part of a court criminal court judgement. So that now all makes sense to me - two different offices, with two distinct authorities, held by the same person.
 
theprestige said:
It seems the judge made the award in his ceremonial role of High Sheriff, not in his role as criminal court judge, nor as part of a court criminal court judgement. So that now all makes sense to me - two different offices, with two distinct authorities, held by the same person.
Click to expand...
No, he made it as a Judge. He's not the High Sheriff.

The current High Sheriff of Merseyside (which includes Liverpool) for 2025-2026 is Billy Hui BEM DL, a well-known local BBC presenter, musician, and entertainer, who took office in April 2025,
The High Sheriff is a ceremonial, year-long role representing the King in the county.

We don't have a High Sheriff for Cleveland. We have a Lord Lieutenant which is for life.
At the moment it's Lord Guisborough, Thomas Richard John Chaloner the 3rd Baron Gisborough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom