Split Thread Contempt of court

[catsmate]

SKY News has updated some footage of the incident, presumably cleared with the police as OK to show.

?????

Split from

Car incident in Liverpool

Posted By: jimbob

 

[catsmate]

Charged with:

• Two counts of unlawful and malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
• Two counts of causing unlawful and malicious grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
• Two counts of attempted unlawful and malicious grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
• One count of dangerous driving

Man charged after Liverpool crash is father-of-three, businessman, and former Royal Marine

Paul Doyle, 53, faces six charges related to grievous bodily harm and one count of dangerous driving after the incident at Liverpool FC's parade.

www.bbc.co.uk

Interesting charge sheet.

 

[catsmate]

Actually, it looks as if sub judice runs from when the accused is arrested:

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

No. The publication of material potentially prejudicial to a fair trial prior to charges being brought against an accused person cannot amount to a contempt of court.

 

[Mojo]

No. The publication of material potentially prejudicial to a fair trial prior to charges being brought against an accused person cannot amount to a contempt of court.

Nope, see the Contempt of Court Act, Schedule 1 paragraphs 3 and 4, in particular 4(a):

Schedule 1:

3 Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, criminal proceedings are active from the relevant initial step specified in paragraph 4 until concluded as described in paragraph 5.

4 The initial steps of criminal proceedings are:—

(a)arrest without warrant;

(b)the issue, or in Scotland the grant, of a warrant for arrest;

(c)the issue of a summons to appear, or in Scotland the grant of a warrant to cite;

(d)the service of an indictment or other document specifying the charge;

(e)except in Scotland, oral charge

Contempt of Court Act 1981

An Act to amend the law relating to contempt of court and related matters.

www.legislation.gov.uk

And also the law firm website I've already cited.

 

[theprestige]

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.
.


.

My view is that news outlets don't owe the police any courtesy of this kind, that it would set a dangerous precedent for Sky news to ask the police for permission to publish, and that it's unlikely that anyone at Sky is such a pants on head retarded bootlicker as to take such a step.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

My view is that news outlets don't owe the police any courtesy of this kind, that it would set a dangerous precedent for Sky news to ask the police for permission to publish, and that it's unlikely that anyone at Sky is such a pants on head retarded bootlicker as to take such a step.

First of all, many European countries still try to adhere to the innocent until proven guilty thing and thus make it illegal to name suspects until actually guilty, to prevent witch hunts, which puts some limits on what a company can publish.
And secondly, you really do not see the irony about you complaining companies being bootlickers in the EU while having voted in a government that restricts free speech far more yourself?

 

[Mojo]

My view is that news outlets don't owe the police any courtesy of this kind, that it would set a dangerous precedent for Sky news to ask the police for permission to publish, and that it's unlikely that anyone at Sky is such a pants on head retarded bootlicker as to take such a step.

Most likely Sky will have asked their lawyers if it's OK to publish, as they would have to in any similar case (see the Contempt of Court Act 1981 as cited above).

 

[catsmate]

It might be beneficial if participants in this thread informed themselves about the difference between 'contempt of court' and 'sub judice'.

 

[theprestige]

First of all, many European countries still try to adhere to the innocent until proven guilty thing and thus make it illegal to name suspects until actually guilty, to prevent witch hunts, which puts some limits on what a company can publish.

I don't see how the one follows from the other.

The US makes almost all court proceedings public record, and has no significant problems with witch hunts.

I get that different countries have different cultures and different issues. I welcome national exceptionalism. The UKian need to curb witch hunts is a necessity, not a virtue. And I question whether it's actually necessary.

And secondly, you really do not see the irony about you complaining companies being bootlickers in the EU while having voted in a government that restricts free speech far more yourself?

Stop trying to change the subject. Your views on the nature and limits of free speech have nothing to do with how this or that person may or may not have voted in the imaginary and unrelated partisan political slapfight you're winning in your head.

 

[theprestige]

It might be beneficial if participants in this thread informed themselves about the difference between 'contempt of court' and 'sub judice'.

I feel like I have a perfectly cromulent understanding of what everyone is saying, even if they are using comically incorrect terminology.

 

[Planigale]

I don't see how the one follows from the other.

The US makes almost all court proceedings public record, and has no significant problems with witch hunts.
I get that different countries have different cultures and different issues. I welcome national exceptionalism. The UKian need to curb witch hunts is a necessity, not a virtue. And I question whether it's actually necessary.


Stop trying to change the subject. Your views on the nature and limits of free speech have nothing to do with how this or that person may or may not have voted in the imaginary and unrelated partisan political slapfight you're winning in your head.

Really?

Salem, lynch mobs, Mcarthyism, internment of Japanese ethnicity Americans, Satinic Panic, Karens, doxxing, etc.

 

[PitPat]

Having watched a lot of courtroom shows, the judge will often threaten them with contempt if they get too mouthy.

Maybe a day, maybe 10 days. Usually if they come in later and apologize the judge will drop it.

If it's clear violation of a court order, then they'll smack you with it. So far our president and his DOJ posse have yet to meet a criminal threshold.

 

[theprestige]

Really?

Salem, lynch mobs, Mcarthyism, internment of Japanese ethnicity Americans, Satinic Panic, Karens, doxxing, etc.

None of which are about defendants being persecuted because their court proceedings are public record.

In the US, except in cases of minor children, the names of the accused are not redacted. The problem envisioned in the UK does not arise in any significant way.

I suspect it wouldn't arise in the UK either, but if it would, well.

 

[jeremyp]

First of all, many European countries still try to adhere to the innocent until proven guilty thing and thus make it illegal to name suspects until actually guilty, to prevent witch hunts, which puts some limits on what a company can publish.

That may be the case for many countries in Europe, but the UK would not be one of the many, in that case. In the UK, suspects are often named in the media before they have been convicted or brought to trial. I think the only cases (as a rule) where they won't do that is if the suspect is a minor or naming the suspect would make it obvious who somebody else with protected identity is.

And secondly, you really do not see the irony about you complaining companies being bootlickers in the EU while having voted in a government that restricts free speech far more yourself?

You don't know if The Prestige voted for the current US government or if they agree with any particular policy on free speech.

 

[jeremyp]

None of which are about defendants being persecuted because their court proceedings are public record.

In the US, except in cases of minor children, the names of the accused are not redacted. The problem envisioned in the UK does not arise in any significant way.

I suspect it wouldn't arise in the UK either, but if it would, well.

The case that leaps to mind is the Joanne Yeates case . Her landlord was arrested and subsequently he released without charge because he was innocent. However, several British newspapers ran stories that were essentially character assassinations. I suspect that if the landlord had been brought to trial, contempt of court proceedings would have been brought against those media who had published the stories about him. Note that the issue was not naming the landlord but that the stories about him would have prejudiced his trial. Fortunately for th newspapers in question, you can't prejudge a trial that doesn't happen.

Somebody did try to make a law so you couldn't name a suspect until they have been charged but it didn't get anywhere.

 

[Mojo]

Nope, see the Contempt of Court Act, Schedule 1 paragraphs 3 and 4, in particular 4(a):

Schedule 1:

3 Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, criminal proceedings are active from the relevant initial step specified in paragraph 4 until concluded as described in paragraph 5.

4 The initial steps of criminal proceedings are:—

(a)arrest without warrant;

(b)the issue, or in Scotland the grant, of a warrant for arrest;

(c)the issue of a summons to appear, or in Scotland the grant of a warrant to cite;

(d)the service of an indictment or other document specifying the charge;

(e)except in Scotland, oral charge

Contempt of Court Act 1981

An Act to amend the law relating to contempt of court and related matters.

www.legislation.gov.uk

And also the law firm website I've already cited.

Actually, it looks as if sub judice runs from when the accused is arrested:

Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.

Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction.

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

Incidentally, the Law Commission has now recommended a change to this so that the proceedings would become active when a suspect is charged rather than when they are arrested: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...spects-may-be-released-to-stop-misinformation