• Anonymity -latest Supreme Court judgment 4 0 5 1

Author Topic: Anonymity -latest Supreme Court judgment  (Read 1313 times)

Offline Simon Stylites

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: +11/-1
Anonymity -latest Supreme Court judgment
« on: July 19, 2017, 08:59:56 PM »
Another example of a conflict of interests: the principles of open justice x safeguarding individual reputation and privacy.
On first reading I found myself siding with the dissenters - Lords Kerr and Wilson. It seemed grossly unfair that a man who wasn't even charged, let alone tried, should be forever associated with such notorious crimes.
I've since come to the view that, however unsatisfactory publication of the appellant's name may be, it is better to preserve the traditions of transparent justice and its concomitant reportage.
Of course, this will not be the last word on the subject. Lack of anonymity for those charged with rape (unless subsequently convicted) continue and in camera proceedings relating to national security remain highly controversial.
'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better'
Beckett: Worstword Ho

Offline Captain Walker

  • Warrior for Rights!
  • Administrator
  • Divergent Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 407
  • Karma: +7/-0
    • The Captain's Watch
  • About me: LLB(Hons) 2.1 in 2006 from OU. Hobbies: addiction to Neflix and Amazon. Music: From epic stuff to head banging rock. Food Favs: Chinese, Indian, Malaysian, good steaks, Subway, KFC, Sushi. Fav Hols: Beach resorts. Fav Cars: Nissan GTR anything, Bentleys.
Re: Anonymity -latest Supreme Court judgment
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2017, 10:40:47 PM »
Good article and post. I'm reading it up. Thanks.  :)
Our democracy has been fracked.

Offline David W

  • Power Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
  • Karma: +10/-0
Re: Anonymity -latest Supreme Court judgment
« Reply #2 on: July 20, 2017, 03:38:57 AM »
Thanks Simon, a good read.

It is a thorny issue - an arrest can have serious consequences for an individual never mind an actual charge, even though that may result in an acquittal. On the other hand complainants of sexual crimes are protected, even where those claims are found to be spurious.

I live in Macau currently and they do things a little differently. The identity of the arrested individual is protected as far as can be; they will usually have a black bag placed over their head when being escorted through a public place and always when appearing in media reports. Their name will only be made public once charges are brought (the reasoning behind revealing the identity at the time of charging is that the public prosecutor (Macau is a civil law jurisdiction based on Portuguese law)is deemed a competent authority and will only press charges when a conviction is likely). Even so, the presumption of innocence is protected much more vigorously than is the case in the UK and other common law areas. The media can report that John Smith was charged with crime X but they cannot speculate any further or jeopardise the presumption in any way. The individual cannot be prejudiced by employers etc (though if the crime was one against their employer they will naturally be terminated for cause).

Its interesting to see the difference in standards - it makes one think about the pros and cons of 'open justice'.
I dont always remember case names in EU law. But when I do it's Internationalle Handelgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr und Vorratsstelle fur getride und Futtermittel