Finsbury Park attack

[Boss]

Hold on, as he's likely to face trial isn't that the rule? Our mutual friend the Secret Barrister posted a thread about it earlier. She's usually spot on.

 

Bit pointless now. His face is all over the internet.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Bit pointless now. His face is all over the internet.

That's worrying.  I much preferred it when he was pixellated.

 

Is there now a greater risk of a mistrial?

[magicrat]

The Mail needs sorting out. Harmsworth and Dacre are inciting racial hatred 

[Rico1304]

Bit pointless now. His face is all over the internet.

if a paper prints a picture of his face then his defence team have the possibility of saying he wouldn't you get a fair trial. The jury have to be independent, if his name, face and previous offences are well known that can't happen. Remember when Tommy Robinson nearly derailed the rape trial recently.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Loads of papers are showing his face.

 

Contempt issues normally only kick in when an accused's face is published and their identity goes to establishing guilt.

 

Plus, it's not sub judice yet. He's only been arrested, not charged.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Loads of papers are showing his face.

 

Contempt issues normally only kick in when an accused's face is published and their identity goes to establishing guilt.

 

Plus, it's not sub judice yet. He's only been arrested, not charged.

Ignore the last bit, sub judice rule can kick in on arrest too.

 

But, publishing his picture won't prevent a fair trial. He did it. He can't say he didn't. His picture being published is largely irrelevant.

[Rico1304]

Loads of papers are showing his face.

Contempt issues normally only kick in when an accused's face is published and their identity goes to establishing guilt.

Plus, it's not sub judice yet. He's only been arrested, not charged.

I'm not sure of the point, you are ok to have his identity published before he's charged? Surely that's bad. Everyone needs a cunt like this off the streets and in prison, anything reduces the chances of that is daft.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

I'm not sure of the point, you are ok to have his identity published before he's charged? Surely that's bad. Everyone needs a cunt like this off the streets and in prison, anything reduces the chances of that is daft.

It won't reduce the chance of a conviction.

[Rico1304]

It won't reduce the chance of a conviction.

What about Lee Rigby's killers?

 

https://twitter.com/dbanksy/status/876750587324452864

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

What about Lee Rigby's killers?

 

https://twitter.com/dbanksy/status/876750587324452864

There's no hard and fast rule. That Twitter thread says that the Attorney General put restrictions on the reporting. The reasons behind this not being clear from that thread.

 

If you clearly refer to somebody as a "suspect" and that it's "alleged" that they were responsible for an offence, as is the case with the reporting on this Darren bloke, there's nothing to see, no risk of suggesting guilt or trial by media whatsoever.

[magicrat]

Ignore the last bit, sub judice rule can kick in on arrest too.

 

But, publishing his picture won't prevent a fair trial. He did it. He can't say he didn't. His picture being published is largely irrelevant.

 

That's my understanding too

[Rico1304]

There's no hard and fast rule. That Twitter thread says that the Attorney General put restrictions on the reporting. The reasons behind this not being clear from that thread.

If you clearly refer to somebody as a "suspect" and that it's "alleged" that they were responsible for an offence, as is the case with the reporting on this Darren bloke, there's nothing to see, no risk of suggesting guilt or trial by media whatsoever.

Mate, you got half of the info wrong. I'll stick with the experts.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Mate, you got half of the info wrong. I'll stick with the experts.

I got one small detail wrong.

 

I'll go with the Guardian's lawyer's over an anonymous blogger...

[Rico1304]

I got one small detail wrong.

I'll go with the Guardian's lawyer's over an anonymous blogger...

Small detail? You're a lawyer right? You are Lionel Hutz and I claim my $200.

 

This is the profile of the guy who's advice you ignored.

 

[General Dryness]

Do you reckon the Cardiff terrorist was willing to Dai for his cause?

If it was a hire van, I hope someone took it bach.

[Captain Turdseye]

Nelly and Rico, eh? Who'd have thunk it?

 

Just close the thread.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Small detail? You're a lawyer right? You are Lionel Hutz and I claim my $200.

 

This is the profile of the guy who's advice you ignored.

 

Is that the bloke who says that restrictions apply, but who has in no way suggested that it's problematic to publish his picture and name, or suggested that to do so could prevent a fair trial? You've clearly read what you wanted to read there. Again. Can you show me where he says that you can't name or show a picture of a suspect? Because I can't see it?

 

Soham murders. Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr named on arrest, before charge and trial. Found guilty. No no fair trial argument was made.

 

Sarah Payne murder. Roy Whiting named on arrest, before charge and trial. Found guilty. No no fair trial argument was made.

 

April Jones murder. Mark Bridger named on arrest, before charge and trial. Found guilty. No no fair trial argument was made.

 

Just saying...

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Nelly and Rico, eh? Who'd have thunk it?

 

Just close the thread.

I just can't be doing with know all cunts who actually know fuck all.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Jo Cox murder. Thomas Mair named on arrest, before charge and trial. Found guilty. No no fair trial argument was made....

 

Shall I continue?....

[VladimirIlyich]

His defence will be 'I was just having Araf.'

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Tia Sharp murder. Stuart Hazzell named on arrest, before charge and trial. Found guilty. No no fair trial argument was made....

 

This is getting embarrassing for Rico now. Oops!

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Joanna Yeates murder. The infamous missing pizza case. Vincent Tabak named on arrest.....you know the rest....

[Rico1304]

Tia Sharp murder. Stuart Hazzell named on arrest, before charge and trial. Found guilty. No no fair trial argument was made....

This is getting embarrassing for Rico now. Oops!

I don't know anything, that's why I looked to an expert. If you know better then crack on. After all where did trusting experts ever get us?

 

Tell you what why not tweet him and tell him he's wrong? I'll watch.

 

From a purely lay perspective I'd say that if they were looking to tie this to an ideology and therefore terrorism it's best if people don't comment on what they know until the trial. The facts of the case speak for themselves, he drove the car at people shouting pretty horrific stuff.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

 

Tell you what why not tweet him and tell him he's wrong? I'll watch.

 

 

He's not wrong. There are restrictions on what you can report and how you can report after arrest and then again after charge.

 

You're the one who's wrong. You've somehow managed to read a totally unconnected comment about reporting restrictions as if it backs up your claim that publishing a "SUSPECTS" name and picture could seriously risk the fairness of a trial. He suggests nothing of the sort. I've already asked you to show me where he does suggest this. Your inability to do so is quite telling...

[Anubis]

Hold on, as he's likely to face trial isn't that the rule? Our mutual friend the Secret Barrister posted a thread about it earlier. She's usually spot on.

You appear to be confusing publishing material prejudicial to the trial with identifying somebody.

 

A criminal court is a court of public record so he will be identified by name, date of birth, and address in court, all of which can be published (with certain exceptions).

 

As for image, pictures or video of the accused routinely appear in print, skulking outside court or going to and from a hearing.