Other people have touched on this here, but does anyone know for sure what the legal position is on media releasing the arrested men's names, pictures and personal details before they were actually charged?
I imagine such activities are within the law but how ?
It seems absolutely disgraceful to me, as of course it's always very likely that any arrest made over any crime may lead to no charges being made and the suspect released.
Surely it cannot be the case that the only protection available to any person 'wrongly named and shamed' is to try to sue for defamation of character after the event?
If so, that would be a disgraceful example of how the law is an ass.
It appears the policy is they can name them until told otherwise.
There have been quite a few cases where people are arrested and named throughout the media, and then all of a sudden they can't name them for legal reasons - though then it's too late!
There was a movement not too long ago to get the law changed about this so no one could be named until charged, but I don't think it got far!
Expect Private Eye to do something similar and doubtless further hand-wringing in Media Guardian. Really I can't see this situation lasting much longer - either media organisations will (be forced to) restrain themselves or we'll go down the American route of naming everyone and everything. There's a lot to be said for trusting juries but even so, coverage like we've seen recently can ruin the lives of people who don't deserve it.
High praise for the Sky News crime correspondent Martin Brunt. When a hack from (another) newspaper phoned Suffolk police press office with a query on the serial killer case, he was told “Call Martin Brunt. He knows everything before we do.” A little concerning.
Other people have touched on this here, but does anyone know for sure what the legal position is on media releasing the arrested men's names, pictures and personal details before they were actually charged?
I imagine such activities are within the law but how ?
I think it's a bit of a grey area, IMHO the media are on very dodgy ground even mentioning their names. Although it does depend on what they say about the suspects, they will have had to be very careful to make sure they are portrayed as suspects.
The really dodgy legal aspect was the Sun's front page photo of Steve Wright on Wednesday, if there's anything that will screw up any court case then it's that!
It will be interesting to see what happens with the first suspect, after having his character assasinated by the media at the beginning of the week, he's got big problems
As far as I can see (and I work in this area, in Scotland, where you could argue the Contempt of Court law is enforced a little bit more strictly than down south), there's no major issue with naming people being questioned by the police. That is a matter of fact.
As long as you don't provide any background information, or in any way infer that these people are guilty (or, for the love of God, don't get the name wrong) then there shouldn't be an issue.
If they are charged, they will appear in court and the information will become public anyway.
The major problem comes in giving away any background information, or printing anything which may infer they are guilty. For evidence of this, see any press reporting whatsoever on this case in the last few days (eg interviewing people who knew them for their character, printing pictures of them mock-strangling people etc). It has been quite frankly incredible, and on a scale of what the American media normally get away with.
Also pictures should not be published at this point as, if any case went to trial, prosecution witnesses would be asked to identify the person in court. Of course, if they'd seen a picture of someone in the papers just beforehand, then this could be seen to sway their judgement and cause, to use the legal phrase, a 'substantial risk of serious prejudice', endengaring a fair trial.
Under normal circumstances all this would leave you open to both Contempt of Court (prejudicing a case, and making it impossible to have a fair trial) or defamation (inferring someone is guilty of something when they haven't done it). It will be interesting to see how this develops.
I would say that the media are gambling that, as a long period of time is likely to pass before any trial, they can argue that the public will have forgotten these reports and that they will therefore not have caused a 'substantial risk of serious prejudice'. A dangerous game, and it just takes one angry fiscal (insert the English equivalent here) to call you up to court on the flimsiest of grounds (certainly far less than is evident here) to get you in a heap of trouble.
One thing I will guarantee - if a local paper had in any way covered an identical story like this, they would have been hammered. It seems to be one law for the rich and one for the little guys.
By the way, I thought the way I do before last night's police statement. In fact, from the first time I saw the first suspect's picture and name on TV.
Let's imagine, for example, that Sky's Jeremy Thompson was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was hauled in as a suspect in a murder case.
Would he feel it was reasonable for his pictures and (likely) address details to be splashed around the world before he was charged with anything?
If/when he was released without charge his name and reputation would be marred for a considerable time if not for life and I would fully expect him to make efforts to use the law to attempt to redress that.
I find it hard to even understand why people's identities are released when they are charged, let alone when merely arrested suspects. Maybe there is some intentional purpose or hoped benefit from this? If so, do let me know as I am not familiar with the law.
By the way, presumably the media got the two mens' names from the police originally? If not, from whom?
Maybe the wider issue here is how the media have got so out of control over recent years and shamelessly sensationalist in their pursuit of witchhunts and scapegoats.
Not least, how can tabloid newspapers routinely get away with majorly or totally fabricating stories?
I'm just incredulous in this day and age that the law apparently allows possibly innocent people's lives and reputations to be destroyed, with their only possible chance of redress being going to court and sueing afterwards. Or am I missing something here?
