Does Jo Yeats Landlord have a right to sue the police?

[DTCwordfan]

A debate here - what rights does the landlord have to go after the police for wrongful arrest?

It is probably a question for somebody like NewJudge to give full clarity.

We are just discussing it pre-lunch, and that he should look at the Press for potential libel and have covered the exposure of untoward 'accusations' on sites such as AB. The danger of some of the untoward comments in the past has been pointed out to many AB contributors by Dirs, myself and others....

This is not a debate about the Dutch guy who has been charged.

[NazNomad]

Was he arrested 'on suspicion of'?

[tamborine]

The landlord put himself in the frame by claiming he was last to see Jo Yeats. Ofcourse the police are expected to thoroughly investigate his claim, in every way possible.

If he does sue, I hope its with his own money.

[ummmm]

He was arrested on 'suspicion of' and as far as what I read that's all the press reported. The press did delve into his past a bit too much, probably because he looked 'weird' but as long as what the press have printed is true I can't see him being able to do much about it.

Sites like AB...a user says 'I think he did it because he looks weird' Isn't that just an opinion?

[cantatrice]

The landlord was treated abominably by the Press and Media generally and he
should have every right to call them to justice.

[ummmm]

But as long as any laws weren't broken...!

And how can you say wrongful arrest when he gave conflicting stories? That put him under suspicion.

[Dris]

He's still on Police bail though-that hasnt been lifted.
'I think' is permissable-its when they say 'He is' thats when the weight of the law comes down.

[anneasquith]

dt, am no legal expert, but if it was illegal most newspapers and tv would be sued, for showing his picture.

[Dris]

Apparently thats not the case Anne.Your face isnt your property so to speak -is only obscured if subjudical and thats not the case here as he hasnt been charged.Its shocking but its the law.

[ummmm]

But how can it be trial by media when we don't know any of the facts.

[DTCwordfan]

Yes, faces are not private property.

The newspapers do employ battalions of lawyers and if you haven't noticed, things are couched in words like could - i.e. all conditional to leave the legal loopholes and hence dodge the libel bullets....

However, given some of the vitriol expressed in the tabloids, it wouldn't surprise me if they do find a libel case..it is not as if the papers are always watertight as proven by examples in the not-so-distant past. It is also a question that other media, such as here, are also potentially liable - though probably not as deep pockets to target.

I am interested to hear from the likes of NewJudge as to the rights that the landlord has, and once the bail has been lifted, which I would think would be very soon.

[Dris]

Precisely.Once charged for talks sake thats when when the Media and Internet have to rein in opinions as they may become subjudicial.As it is at the moment its free rein until they lift his bail-only then can he start suing-dont think he'll get very far though.
Watch what happens with man who has been charged now -there will be a totally different slant on the reporting.
As I said last night I was left wide opne when I was a victim of a crime and I had just hold my head up and get on with it -there was no law to protect me as it was in a public domain.

[Dris]

Great minds etc DT -that post was to ummmm.!

[sara3]

there may be "perverting the course of justice" charges, but we don't know the full story yet. one neighbour covering for another, perhaps?

and yes, it's speculation.

[New Judge]

This is not really my field but to prove wrongful arrest he would have to show that the police had no just cause to arrest him, or simply arrested him maliciously. The first scenario seems unlikely as they held on to him for, I believe, three days, so they must have had something to question him about. It would be for him to prove that their interest in him was entirely misplaced.

As far as I could see the press only reported the facts when the landlord was arrested. It is unfortunate that whenever the police make arrests in these high profile cvases the public automatically assume that the person arrested is guilty. It doesn’t work like that but I think the media should be a little more circumspect when reporting. There really is no need to delve into the past of people who have been arrested and try to paint them as some kind of maniac before they have been convicted.

As has been said, I believe the press will be a little more careful with Mt Tabak now that he has been charged. This is almost certainly the last we will hear about this in the press until the trial begins.

[anneasquith]

thanks nj...........very interesting.

[Poor-Alfie]

If the police had to worry about being sued, every time they arrested someone,.Then solving crimes would prove far more difficult.

[eyethenkyew]

The Police, in order to make ANY arrest, must have what in law is known as "reasonable grounds for suspicion" and boils down to whether or not the arrest, as per the law, was both lawful and necessary. However, that has to be tempered with a number of factors. Take a look at these links:

http://www.wikicrimel...title=Power_of_arrest

http://sixthformlaw.i..._powers_of_arrest.htm

Therefore, it will depend to an extent as to whether or not the landlord, Mr Jefferies, has any further action taken against him. He is presently still on Bail as far as I'm aware. Should he "answer his Bail", as it is know, i.e. return to whichever Police Station it is on the date his Bail expires, or should he be informed prior to that, that nothing else will be proceeded against him, then he may feel free to seek legal advice as to whether he might consider suing the Police for possible wrongful arrest.

If, however, he were to be charged, and subsequently convicted of any offence, he'd be on a fairly shaky peg. It all depends.