|
|
Post by wapentake on Mar 29, 2024 18:17:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Mar 30, 2024 6:50:55 GMT
Interesting that the real nature of the crime with which he has been charged is laid bare
Yesterday I turned the TV on three minutes before the story broke.
All channels were using the phrase 'historic offences' and the BBC were saying 'tbe particular nature of the law in northern Ireland meant they could say no more than that and offer no more information on the nature of the offence'
I even turned on the VPN and started poking around the US and France to go d details as you can usually count on one of them to violate UK legal barriers but no, nothing
And then a few hours later there it was
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Mar 30, 2024 12:13:35 GMT
The Media cannot discuss cases which are sub judice they cannot be discussed in the media whilst a person is awaiting trial , hence they just say so and so has been charged with whatever and leave it at that.
They can only report what is said in Court when a trial begins, or a Judge can order that they do not report anything until the Trial is over
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Apr 1, 2024 17:45:21 GMT
The Media cannot discuss cases which are sub judice they cannot be discussed in the media whilst a person is awaiting trial , hence they just say so and so has been charged with whatever and leave it at that. They can only report what is said in Court when a trial begins, or a Judge can order that they do not report anything until the Trial is over My point was the charge laid before him to plead to was not that he committed "an historical offence" but that he committed an act of rape, and that detail was omitted from the media coverage, who certainly in the case of Sky News pretended they were prevented by the police from revealing it.
The police have no power to make such a demand. The jude presiding over the hearing at which the charge is placed before the defendant has, but that is not what the Sky News "journalists" breaking the story said, they said they were prevented from revealing more than the police had told them, and that is pure distilled bullshit
I agree that an ARREST on suspicion of such an act is these days tantamount to the commencement of trial by social media, but it is a long standing principle of english law that a CHARGE is a public matter. There are powers to imose reporting restrictions but if such a judges notice had been served we would have been told nothing.
I'm sorry but it certainly seems to me that this is a case of the powerful trying to prevent legitimate details of the nature of the offence with which one has been charged, secret from the public. I'm not talking about the details of the upcoming prosecution i'm well aware of the issues of reporting those.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 1, 2024 18:14:03 GMT
The Media cannot discuss cases which are sub judice they cannot be discussed in the media whilst a person is awaiting trial , hence they just say so and so has been charged with whatever and leave it at that. They can only report what is said in Court when a trial begins, or a Judge can order that they do not report anything until the Trial is over My point was the charge laid before him to plead to was not that he committed "an historical offence" but that he committed an act of rape, and that detail was omitted from the media coverage, who certainly in the case of Sky News pretended they were prevented by the police from revealing it.
The police have no power to make such a demand. The jude presiding over the hearing at which the charge is placed before the defendant has, but that is not what the Sky News "journalists" breaking the story said, they said they were prevented from revealing more than the police had told them, and that is pure distilled bullshit
I agree that an ARREST on suspicion of such an act is these days tantamount to the commencement of trial by social media, but it is a long standing principle of english law that a CHARGE is a public matter. There are powers to imose reporting restrictions but if such a judges notice had been served we would have been told nothing.
I'm sorry but it certainly seems to me that this is a case of the powerful trying to prevent legitimate details of the nature of the offence with which one has been charged, secret from the public. I'm not talking about the details of the upcoming prosecution i'm well aware of the issues of reporting those.
There is quite a lot you can mention about the case sub judice. It's only if you prejudice the case can you get into trouble. That would normally involve giving out information that the jury would not otherwise get to see in court. Anything said in court itself can be reported because it is what the jury hear and you can discuss stuff that is already widely known prior to the charge. It's when you start saying, ah i know that woman and on that night i knew she was doing this or that so can't be guilty etc. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Apr 1, 2024 18:25:34 GMT
Yeah, the only caveat there is where the judge requires reporting of details and conviction be held back from the public lest these details prejudice a jury in proceedings not yet commenced. The judges notice will instruct those present in the public gallery to STFU until the subsequent trial is concluded and verdict given
Even those restrictions cannot be imposed indefinitely....
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Apr 1, 2024 19:38:48 GMT
The Media cannot discuss cases which are sub judice they cannot be discussed in the media whilst a person is awaiting trial , hence they just say so and so has been charged with whatever and leave it at that. They can only report what is said in Court when a trial begins, or a Judge can order that they do not report anything until the Trial is over My point was the charge laid before him to plead to was not that he committed "an historical offence" but that he committed an act of rape, and that detail was omitted from the media coverage, who certainly in the case of Sky News pretended they were prevented by the police from revealing it.
The police have no power to make such a demand. The jude presiding over the hearing at which the charge is placed before the defendant has, but that is not what the Sky News "journalists" breaking the story said, they said they were prevented from revealing more than the police had told them, and that is pure distilled bullshit
I agree that an ARREST on suspicion of such an act is these days tantamount to the commencement of trial by social media, but it is a long standing principle of english law that a CHARGE is a public matter. There are powers to imose reporting restrictions but if such a judges notice had been served we would have been told nothing.
I'm sorry but it certainly seems to me that this is a case of the powerful trying to prevent legitimate details of the nature of the offence with which one has been charged, secret from the public. I'm not talking about the details of the upcoming prosecution i'm well aware of the issues of reporting those.
It matters not how historical the Offence is alleged to have been committed, the charges put state quite clearly what the Offence or Offences are, on such a date and place you did Rape victims name, on such a date you did murder victims name etc. The media unless the case is being held in Camera can be present to hear the charges as can anyone else in Court at the time Media members of the Public unless they do things different in NI, Reporting Restrictions if put in place by a Judge can sometimes mean the Media cannot publish what they hear in Court day by day until the trial is concluded I am not aware of what Sky News claim , but I have never heard of Police telling the Media not to Publish anything , the Police should not be telling the Press anything about the Trial or evidence at all before the trial or during it I am not sure what you mean or the point you are trying to make |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Apr 1, 2024 21:34:38 GMT
My point was the charge laid before him to plead to was not that he committed "an historical offence" but that he committed an act of rape, and that detail was omitted from the media coverage, who certainly in the case of Sky News pretended they were prevented by the police from revealing it.
The police have no power to make such a demand. The jude presiding over the hearing at which the charge is placed before the defendant has, but that is not what the Sky News "journalists" breaking the story said, they said they were prevented from revealing more than the police had told them, and that is pure distilled bullshit
I agree that an ARREST on suspicion of such an act is these days tantamount to the commencement of trial by social media, but it is a long standing principle of english law that a CHARGE is a public matter. There are powers to imose reporting restrictions but if such a judges notice had been served we would have been told nothing.
I'm sorry but it certainly seems to me that this is a case of the powerful trying to prevent legitimate details of the nature of the offence with which one has been charged, secret from the public. I'm not talking about the details of the upcoming prosecution i'm well aware of the issues of reporting those.
It matters not how historical the Offence is alleged to have been committed, the charges put state quite clearly what the Offence or Offences are, on such a date and place you did Rape victims name, on such a date you did murder victims name etc. The media unless the case is being held in Camera can be present to hear the charges as can anyone else in Court at the time Media members of the Public unless they do things different in NI, Reporting Restrictions if put in place by a Judge can sometimes mean the Media cannot publish what they hear in Court day by day until the trial is concluded I am not aware of what Sky News claim , but I have never heard of Police telling the Media not to Publish anything , the Police should not be telling the Press anything about the Trial or evidence at all before the trial or during it I am not sure what you mean or the point you are trying to make I think we’re in agreement on the basics here. Let me then spell out the issue i have As i think i set out earlier, i had no idea this story was breaking i came down from my office, turned the telly on and it powered up on the bbc news channel and was running a ‘breaking news’ of the resignation and the statement that the man had been charged with ‘historic offences’ with no details. I got a tad hacked off with endless repeats of nothing useful and i switched to sky, who were unsurprisingly running the same story. Two anchors, a bloke and a woman in a blue dress. After a few minutes of explaining who this bloke is, they kept referring to the press release from the party that he had been suspended after being charged with historic offences … And one slip that it might beca historic SEXUAL Offence And two minutes after that slip up, and yet another run of the script, the bloke, i think it was stated that they could only report what the met police had told them they could say and that the police has limited what they could say in respect of the offence with which they were charged….. I didn’t stick around much after that as i had somewhere i had to be but yeah, here we had Sky News stating the police had limited the details they could broadcast. I’ve never heard those words before I’ve quite often heard the ‘we can't give details for legal reasons’ which means a judge’s notice restricting reporting will be in Moira’s (and everyone else's) MOJ in tray before long…. But apart from certain closed cases those only apply until further proceedings are concluded. Wierd. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Apr 2, 2024 7:52:51 GMT
It matters not how historical the Offence is alleged to have been committed, the charges put state quite clearly what the Offence or Offences are, on such a date and place you did Rape victims name, on such a date you did murder victims name etc. The media unless the case is being held in Camera can be present to hear the charges as can anyone else in Court at the time Media members of the Public unless they do things different in NI, Reporting Restrictions if put in place by a Judge can sometimes mean the Media cannot publish what they hear in Court day by day until the trial is concluded I am not aware of what Sky News claim , but I have never heard of Police telling the Media not to Publish anything , the Police should not be telling the Press anything about the Trial or evidence at all before the trial or during it I am not sure what you mean or the point you are trying to make I think we’re in agreement on the basics here. Let me then spell out the issue i have As i think i set out earlier, i had no idea this story was breaking i came down from my office, turned the telly on and it powered up on the bbc news channel and was running a ‘breaking news’ of the resignation and the statement that the man had been charged with ‘historic offences’ with no details. I got a tad hacked off with endless repeats of nothing useful and i switched to sky, who were unsurprisingly running the same story. Two anchors, a bloke and a woman in a blue dress. After a few minutes of explaining who this bloke is, they kept referring to the press release from the party that he had been suspended after being charged with historic offences … And one slip that it might beca historic SEXUAL Offence And two minutes after that slip up, and yet another run of the script, the bloke, i think it was stated that they could only report what the met police had told them they could say and that the police has limited what they could say in respect of the offence with which they were charged….. I didn’t stick around much after that as i had somewhere i had to be but yeah, here we had Sky News stating the police had limited the details they could broadcast. I’ve never heard those words before I’ve quite often heard the ‘we can't give details for legal reasons’ which means a judge’s notice restricting reporting will be in Moira’s (and everyone else's) MOJ in tray before long…. But apart from certain closed cases those only apply until further proceedings are concluded. Wierd. IMHO not weird at all the Police are limited in what they may say to the press, simply to say a person has been charged with whatever the offence,. It is not difficult for the press to find out who that person is, they may get a tip off from a Police Officer, Police Staff, even Court Staff in this case a Political opponent reporters are usually present in Magistrates Courts Monday to Friday and the list of cases is published in the Court Public Foyer. When it come to Reporting Conditions the defence can ask the Judge to put reporting restrictions in place, the Judge then decides yes or no, if no restricts are put in place as you know the Press can report on what evidence they have heard in Court that day, what they alleged victim has said or witnesses. It happens every day when Courts are sitting in the UK |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 2, 2024 13:03:16 GMT
My point was the charge laid before him to plead to was not that he committed "an historical offence" but that he committed an act of rape, and that detail was omitted from the media coverage, who certainly in the case of Sky News pretended they were prevented by the police from revealing it.
The police have no power to make such a demand. The jude presiding over the hearing at which the charge is placed before the defendant has, but that is not what the Sky News "journalists" breaking the story said, they said they were prevented from revealing more than the police had told them, and that is pure distilled bullshit
I agree that an ARREST on suspicion of such an act is these days tantamount to the commencement of trial by social media, but it is a long standing principle of english law that a CHARGE is a public matter. There are powers to imose reporting restrictions but if such a judges notice had been served we would have been told nothing.
I'm sorry but it certainly seems to me that this is a case of the powerful trying to prevent legitimate details of the nature of the offence with which one has been charged, secret from the public. I'm not talking about the details of the upcoming prosecution i'm well aware of the issues of reporting those.
It matters not how historical the Offence is alleged to have been committed, the charges put state quite clearly what the Offence or Offences are, on such a date and place you did Rape victims name, on such a date you did murder victims name etc. The media unless the case is being held in Camera can be present to hear the charges as can anyone else in Court at the time Media members of the Public unless they do things different in NI, Reporting Restrictions if put in place by a Judge can sometimes mean the Media cannot publish what they hear in Court day by day until the trial is concluded I am not aware of what Sky News claim , but I have never heard of Police telling the Media not to Publish anything , the Police should not be telling the Press anything about the Trial or evidence at all before the trial or during it I am not sure what you mean or the point you are trying to make The police are playing the drip-drip approach to it. It's highly disingenuous towards the public they serve, who have a right to know these things when they are known. The police are playing with our minds. They are effectively politicised. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 3, 2024 10:31:08 GMT
Interesting that the real nature of the crime with which he has been charged is laid bare Yesterday I turned the TV on three minutes before the story broke. All channels were using the phrase 'historic offences' and the BBC were saying 'tbe particular nature of the law in northern Ireland meant they could say no more than that and offer no more information on the nature of the offence' I even turned on the VPN and started poking around the US and France to go d details as you can usually count on one of them to violate UK legal barriers but no, nothing And then a few hours later there it was My guess would be it's a method of "trawling for victims" without risking being accused of doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on May 7, 2024 6:13:27 GMT
It matters not how historical the Offence is alleged to have been committed, the charges put state quite clearly what the Offence or Offences are, on such a date and place you did Rape victims name, on such a date you did murder victims name etc. The media unless the case is being held in Camera can be present to hear the charges as can anyone else in Court at the time Media members of the Public unless they do things different in NI, Reporting Restrictions if put in place by a Judge can sometimes mean the Media cannot publish what they hear in Court day by day until the trial is concluded I am not aware of what Sky News claim , but I have never heard of Police telling the Media not to Publish anything , the Police should not be telling the Press anything about the Trial or evidence at all before the trial or during it I am not sure what you mean or the point you are trying to make The police are playing the drip-drip approach to it. It's highly disingenuous towards the public they serve, who have a right to know these things when they are known. The police are playing with our minds. They are effectively politicised. As and when the Trial begins then you will hear what is happening in Court day by day how the case unfolds, what is said and by whom victim or victims their evidence, only then will the public hear what is alleged to have taken place. Until the Trial starts everything relating to the Trial is totally confidential, the Police, Prosecution, and the defence say nothing as per usual |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on May 7, 2024 10:22:25 GMT
The police are playing the drip-drip approach to it. It's highly disingenuous towards the public they serve, who have a right to know these things when they are known. The police are playing with our minds. They are effectively politicised. As and when the Trial begins then you will hear what is happening in Court day by day how the case unfolds, what is said and by whom victim or victims their evidence, only then will the public hear what is alleged to have taken place. Until the Trial starts everything relating to the Trial is totally confidential, the Police, Prosecution, and the defence say nothing as per usual That's not how the police behave. It's how they tell you it happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on May 8, 2024 6:01:30 GMT
As and when the Trial begins then you will hear what is happening in Court day by day how the case unfolds, what is said and by whom victim or victims their evidence, only then will the public hear what is alleged to have taken place. Until the Trial starts everything relating to the Trial is totally confidential, the Police, Prosecution, and the defence say nothing as per usual That's not how the police behave. It's how they tell you it happens. Wrong |
|
