Channel Four News "exclusive" could risk mistrial

I understand the point you are making, Gav, and I do indeed think it's wrong that sections of the media release potentially prejudicial information about suspects; but in an alternative scenario such publicity may prompt someone to come forward with information to support the case, or indeed something which may exonerate the person named in the report.

C4 News are normally a respectable programme, and from reading some of the posts on here it seems they have edited the information available online after the person was charged. Other media contributors are not so respectful of the English/Welsh legal process: which will pave the way for the defence to claim an unfair trial in this case.

Perhaps, because of the availablility of information to anyone with a passing ability to 'google', the time has come to either:

* Ask juries to confirm that they will ignore any prior knowldge of cases (and then have their deliberations recorded for consideration 'in camera' by any Appeal Judges), or

* Move to a system of three or five specialised Judges to rule on high profile cases (with the assumption that their legal training will allow them to filter out external information).

Both of those suggestions carry risks.

Either way: the 'genie is out of the bottle', it's time that the law caught up with the rapid availability of information.

I notice that ITV's NaT are making potentially prejudicial comments tonight in their lead story.

But not from looking back at the man's life and his Amazon.co.uk purchases. Saying who he is - which generally seems acceptable - and details about the case, such as where the bodies were found etc. is more than enough to prompt people to come forwards. It is also the case for the police and CPS to decide what information and details in a case should be made public, and for the broadcasters and press to respond to that disclosed information by the police and CPS.

He's not been charged, so proceedings are not active. Contempt doesn't apply. Person on phone is correct, may have to take it off if they are charged, if it has a "significant" risk of prejudicing the jury.

Yes, I've been reading McNae's recently.

no, proceedings are active from arrest

Questioning isn't an arrest.

He's been arrested Jonathan - keep up.

Apologies - but for the original post, that's right. So now they can't broadcast it again.

Anyway, there's the fade effect to consider - it might be seen that the information might be forgotten over time due to importance.

Yes, why don't we all sit back, and be cavalier about what might or might not be forgotten by a jury. Nothing can go wrong there...

I would have thought it was self evident that its in the best interests all round that this overwhelmingly foul series of crimes be resolved by a secure conviction of the guilty party.

Barry George? Been there, seen it, bought the T shirt.

Surely to god lessons have been learned about the commercial news media's need to increase sales/share, versus the rather more serious and long lasting effects of a tainted trial?

Someone mentioned late tonight that the BBC carried reports of this "shopping list". Is this true?

96% of all criminal cases are dealt with by Magistrates. Therefore, only a small amount of cases are ever heard by jury. Why we insist on keeping juries is baffling to me, considering many other countries have abolished them for their unjustness.

That's not exactly following the spirit of the law.

It's worse than that. The BBC said his website reveals his academic interest in murder. I don't know if he has a website, I assume they mean the Amazon page but that is a very misleading statement if that is what they are referring to. They also refer to the flat were he 'lived' rather than 'lives', so I guess they have already decided he is guilty and will now live in prison.

The report also shows pictures of people laying flowers for the dead women, I hadn't realised that they are laying them outside the building where this man lives. Obviously some of the public have already given their verdict which can only be based on media coverage.

http://bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sjpv7/BBC_News_at_Ten_27_05_2010/?t=5m46s

Ray Snoddy it is, then.

*type type*