Should The Bbc Face Prosecution?

[youngmafbog]

// it was revealed that the suspected fantasist, known only as Nick, who triggered Scotland Yard’s disgraced Operation Midland inquiry, had been shown photographs of suspects by investigative journalists. //

Surely that is attempting to pervert the course of justice?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3922016/Put-BBC-dock-VIP-sex-abuse-scandal-says-falsely-accused-former-MP-Harvey-Proctor.html

[Gromit]

Andy hughes,
Allegations were made about famous people, and then a photograph was shown to established that the named person(s) were the same.

The BBC probably adopted this procedure after the Newsnight Lord McApline debacle. Someone called Steven Messham named McAlpine as someone who had abused him, and it was only when the allegation had been broadcast that Messham saw the photo of McAlpine, and it wasn't the person who had abused him.

// Messham, the star witness, delivered the coup de grace: he called Stickler to say, now having seen a photograph of Lord McAlpine, he had not been his abuser. //

McAlpine sued and the BBC had to pay damages. A simple check by photo would have prevented the false naming of McAlpine. So showing a photo to a different witness who had named Leon Brittan is meant to be a precaution to prevent mistaken identity.

[andy-hughes]

Gromit - thanks for the clarification, I do understand your point now.

[youngmafbog]

Ah. I too now get your point Gromit.

Thanks for the clarification. It would certainly be one explanation.

[New Judge]

“Perhaps I am missing something, but why is showing a picture likely to lead the witness?”

Yes you are missing something. Identification, and the protocol surrounding it is a complex issue. It’s impossible to cover all the angles here but Andy has covered the salient points. If the matter against (say) Leon Brittan got to court (assuming he was still alive, of course) and it came to light that “Nick” had named his alleged assailant and subsequently identified him from photographs stuck under his nose by a journalist the case would almost certainly collapse.

It would be argued by the defence that, although Nick had named his attacker he may not necessarily be telling the truth. When it was discovered that his memory had been reinforced by a journalist showing him photos which included one of Brittan it would be suggested that he only remembered Brittan because his memory had been jogged by the journalist (e.g. You must remember THIS man, surely?). It does not take much to cause such a collapse and journalists are irresponsible by acting in such a way.

Whether such behaviour would amount to breaking the law would depend on the exact circumstances. If the journalist showed the photos with the express intention of encouraging Nick to make a false accusation then he may certainly find himself up before the Beak.