A tad confused

[lsadirty]

http:\\www.thisisplymouth.co.uk
A man accused of handling the stolen panels from the Hoe War Memorial has his name "withheld for legal reasons", while another accused of child sex offenses has his name and photo shown.
Can someone explain this to me, as I can't figure it out.

 

[higthepig]

Yes mate, the War Memorial guy`s name is withheld cos someone would beat the crap out of him, whilst the kiddie fiddlers name is shown cos no one can touch him, they would do you for assault.

But the War Memorial guy, well, no-one would give a shit.

 

[lsadirty]

I know who my Boots DMS size 9 would like to leave their mark on - lot of local people down here have names on that memorial and are really pissed off about the theft and desecration. As for the other - he'll get his inside.

 

[OldJenny]

I know who my Boots DMS size 9 would like to leave their mark on - lot of local people down here have names on that memorial and are really pissed off about the theft and desecration. As for the other - he'll get his inside.

So the accused has been tried and found guilty already? That's why names are withheld from the press because people have already made up their minds.
I always thought that people were entitled to a trial first? (*sarcasm)

 

[janner]

I know who my Boots DMS size 9 would like to leave their mark on - lot of local people down here have names on that memorial and are really pissed off about the theft and desecration. As for the other - he'll get his inside.

So the accused has been tried and found guilty already? That's why names are withheld from the press because people have already made up their minds.
I always thought that people were entitled to a trial first? (*sarcasm)

Its not usual for the names of people accused of theft to be with held from the press, though this is normally the case in serious sexual assaults. All this sympathy for crooks OJ - one would think that you worked for the
Criminals Protection Service :wink:

 

[sgtpepperband]

"Ahem"...

Under Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the Crown Court has power in certain restricted circumstances to order that publication of reports of part or all of the proceedings held in open court be postponed for so long as necessary, where such a postponement is necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those or other proceedings - for example, if the person is going to be tried on other matters. I don't think that reporting restriction would be imposed because he has not been sentenced (as is the case here; he has entered a plea and been found guilty, but no sentence has been awarded).

For a fuller explanation on restrictions on reporting see "Reporting Restrictions".

 

[Jack_McHammocklashing]

I know who my Boots DMS size 9 would like to leave their mark on - lot of local people down here have names on that memorial and are really pissed off about the theft and desecration. As for the other - he'll get his inside.

So the accused has been tried and found guilty already? That's why names are withheld from the press because people have already made up their minds.


I always thought that people were entitled to a trial first? (*sarcasm)

"So the accused has been tried and found guilty already?

The original SGTPEPPER

"I always thought that people were entitled to a trial first?"

The new pink fluffy SGTPEPPER

sgtPepper Must be getting ready for civvy street

SGT P
You have changed, FROM GUILTY GET YER AT, Hang him Captain, he snapped a pussers pencil Whilst exiting a burning HMS ANTELOPE CIRCA 82

TO this man has uman rights guv, you can not Hang him for being Three weeks adrift There must be exceptional circumstances and he has only ever done it eight times before mate, give him a break

Yeah definately practicing for his civvy job

Jack McH

 

[sgtpepperband]

JMcH: No idea what you're on about either... :scratch:

Anyway I merely posted a possible explanation as to why the Judge imposed reporting restrictions on this case. I made no assumption as to the Accused's guilt. However - if you had bothered to read the news article - you would have read that he had pleaded guilty to the charges anyway...

Don't mention it! :roll:

 

[thingy]

All said and done, sexual offences greatly outweigh mere vandalism. Vandalism of War Memorials whilst causing emotional pain pales into insignificance when compaired to sexual crimes which usually lead to physical and psychological damage. Still I'm surprised that the court has released personal details of unconvicted defendants, especially on such an emotional issue.

 

[OldJenny]

JMcH: No idea what you're on about either... :scratch:

Nor me seeing as how it was my post that he was quoting. :?:

 

[Asst_Ed]

"Ahem"...

Under Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the Crown Court has power in certain restricted circumstances to order that publication of reports of part or all of the proceedings held in open court be postponed for so long as necessary, where such a postponement is necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those or other proceedings - for example, if the person is going to be tried on other matters. I don't think that reporting restriction would be imposed because he has not been sentenced (as is the case here; he has entered a plea and been found guilty, but no sentence has been awarded).

Typically that applies not to the naming of the person but to revealing details of the case; if there's a group of people on trial (e.g. some of the terror cases) and they're tried separately, or one pleads guilty and the rest plead not guilty. There'll be an order in place forbidding publication until the very last trial is over.

I've never been in court where protection of the accused's identity has been an issue - only the victim and witnesses. There are instances whereby the accused cannot be named, normally because there's a child involved (such as the Baby P case - not to protect Baby P, but his siblings...) It's all very complicated. It's a good 8 or 9 years since I covered court regular so things may have changed. What I did often find was defence lawyers asking for a Section 39 order (as it was called then) to 'protect' the child when all it ended up doing was protect the bloody accused.

It might be worth asking the Herald or Plymouth Mags to find out why the accused in this case is anonymous. I think the paper might have kicked up a fuss had it been purely to protect the accused... The other possibility is that he's under 18...

And anyway, even though the paper hasn't named him, all you need to do is ask for the court listings of the day and you'll find his name, age, address and the rest listed (if they still do court lists). What you can't do is publish it here or anywhere else.

 

[SILVER_FOX]

Personally I think this is a missed opportunity. If we named and shamed some of these Oiks we just might discourage others from doing the same.

I really would like to see the introduction of public floggings for this sort of thing.

SF

 

[Jack_McHammocklashing]

SGT P
You appear to have changed greatly from the barsteward regulator GUILTY until proven innocent Given any opportunity even dropping previous oppo's in it to gain fame and fortune (like all reggies do)

To providing all possible excuses as to why one should NOT be punished and innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt

Jack McH

 

[OldJenny]

Typically that applies not to the naming of the person but to revealing details of the case; if there's a group of people on trial (e.g. some of the terror cases) and they're tried separately, or one pleads guilty and the rest plead not guilty. There'll be an order in place forbidding publication until the very last trial is over.

I've never been in court where protection of the accused's identity has been an issue - only the victim and witnesses. There are instances whereby the accused cannot be named, normally because there's a child involved (such as the Baby P case - not to protect Baby P, but his siblings...) It's all very complicated. It's a good 8 or 9 years since I covered court regular so things may have changed. What I did often find was defence lawyers asking for a Section 39 order (as it was called then) to 'protect' the child when all it ended up doing was protect the bloody accused.

It might be worth asking the Herald or Plymouth Mags to find out why the accused in this case is anonymous. I think the paper might have kicked up a fuss had it been purely to protect the accused... The other possibility is that he's under 18...

And anyway, even though the paper hasn't named him, all you need to do is ask for the court listings of the day and you'll find his name, age, address and the rest listed (if they still do court lists). What you can't do is publish it here or anywhere else.

It's still called a Section 39 order. I love the way the CPS get the blame (above) when it's either the District Judge or the magistrates who make the order.

 

[sgtpepperband]

Jack McH: Like the thread title suggests, I'm also a 'tad confused' by your rants... perhaps you should stick to the topic and keep your personal opinion of me to the appropriate threads? Or send me a PM if it makes you feel better - I may even read it one day... :roll: