Not Naming People Until Charged ?

[mikey4444]

Mrs May has started the ball rolling on this issue ::::

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22549866

I have been increasingly ill at ease with people being named when interviewed but before being charged. Far be it for me to agree with a Tory Home Secretary but it would seem that Theresa May has got it it right here. Why should a persons reputation be ruined when they might not ever be subsequently charged and taken to court ?

[naomi24]

I agree. The problem is mud sticks and innocent people are often never able to shake it off completely. Lives have been ruined.

[FredPuli43]

Correct. Cameron has no understanding. The rules which the police follow is that a person arrested is never named, unless naming them is essential for preventing crime or detecting it. That should be the rule for the press, and Lord Justice Leveson has said as much. The police apply their rule because they are well aware of the consequences for an arrested person's reputation; the public may not understand that arrest only means suspicion, which may prove completely unfounded. This does not stop police asking whether the public "Have you seen this man" or saying he is wanted in connection with a crime, whether they've arrested him or not; this comes under detection or prevention of crimes

[Gromit]

Unfortunately ( or fortunately, depending how you look at it) the police have been publicising cases themselves when they think that doing so may lead to other cases coming to light.

That is what they did in the Stuart Hall case. Hall initially strenuously denied any wrong doing. The publicity encourage other victims to come forward . The victims were all un known to each other but their stories were very similar, and Hall's Modus Operandi was established.

When he was charged, it was not with just the original complaint, but with a catalogue of crimes and he must have known the evidence was great as he admitted all the charges.

In Hall's case he was a guilty man, but what if the police wrongly suspect someone is guilty but aren't. Naming (or letting their name be known) could be devastating for an innocent man. The whole thing looks like guilty - until proven innocent. In many cases (not the recent celebs) the police have pursued people and have been wrong.

[ludwig]

// Why should a persons reputation be ruined when they might not ever be subsequently charged and taken to court ? //

I'd agree too. I understand the 'Stuart Hall' argument that it can encourage other victims to come forward, but I think the damage done to innocent people (and their families) lives far outweighs this potential benefit.

[jno]

it's hard to say. I have been concerned about, for instance, Rolf Harris being named. And yet maybe he is another Stuart Hall; as the police have been interviewing another person about Harris's actions. If that leads to another conviction you could say naming him was justified.

[jake-the-peg]

Playing devils advocate here I suspect some in the police would say that naming people encourages others to come forward with further information on a case.

Now personally I don't think that's a strong argument because that will happen when charged and I don't think the Police should be going about arresting people if their evidence is so weak it relies on additional witnesses for a charge to be possible.

But it is another perspective

[ludwig]

// If that leads to another conviction you could say naming him was justified. //

It will have been a gamble that paid off, but that doesn't mean it was right to take the gamble.

[ludwig]

jtp // I don't think the Police should be going about arresting people if their evidence is so weak it relies on additional witnesses for a charge to be possible. //

Exactly. They're basically going on fishing expeditions. If they're not successful, they'll happily move on to the next case potentially leaving an innocent person's life in ruins.

[jake-the-peg]

Of course lets not place all the blame on the Police here

The behaviour of the press in some of these examples has been apalling

I'm particularly thinking of this case (but there are others)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/apr/21/joanna-yeates-national-newspapers

[ludwig]

^ Absolutely jake, but the appalling behaviour of the press goes without saying. It's a given. The police can at least be given a protocol to follow.

[jno]

not necessarily a gamble, ludwig; it's possible he said something when being interviewed that led police to suspcet there might be more than one victim.

This is pure speculation on my part, of course. I have no idea why they name some and not others, but that sort of factor might count with me if I was in their shoes.

[ludwig]

We'll have to wait and see what happens. At the moment it just looks a bit like they're throwing out names of random celebrities that they've got an unsubstantiated accusation against (Tarbuck is another) to see if they've got another Savile on their hands.

Ok, it worked with Stuart Hall, but I wouldn't like to be one of the innocent accused, assuming there are any of course.

[dannyk13]

Whatever happened to the Sub Judice rules under which reporting any informatio n about the case for which a person has been arrested is a criminal offence?

[jno]

I don't think giving the name of the accused comes under sub judice rules. On the contrary, it seems to be part of transparent justice. But suppressing the names until charges are actually laid seems like a good idea.

I don't suppose it will stop bent coppers selling the names to bent reporters. The sooner more of them get put away, the better for the justice system.

[bazwillrun]

I can only think of one reason why somebody should be named before being found gulty in a court of law and even so its a pretty shaky.

Other people who the accused may have committed criminal acts against may come forward and strengthen the case against the accused.

[LazyGun]

From the linked article, Theresa May says this;

"The home secretary said: "I am concerned that the refusal of some police forces to name suspects who have been charged undermines transparency in the criminal justice system and risks the possibility that witnesses and other victims might not come forward.

"I strongly believe that there should be no right to anonymity at charge apart from in extremely unusual circumstances.

"I believe there should be a right to anonymity at arrest, but I know that there will be circumstances in which the public interest means that an arrested suspect should be named."

I could not agree more. It certain cases, the suspect should be named, but this should only be when it is in the public interest. And of course, many of these enquiries post-SoVile would fall into that category....

[Old_Geezer]

I also am not keen on early naming and occasionally mull over the thought that the public need not be told after charging either since they need not be given the opportunity to form a vigilante/lynch mob. Especially since it is not unknown for those found guilty to be exonerated years later.

But then I think, neither do I want a situation where the authorities do what they want to whomever they want and no one is any the wiser, the public needs to know as a safeguard.

It occurs to me sometimes there is just an unhappy medium not a happy one. That's the problem with dealing with people.

[sir.prize]

If they take Mr Clifford to court it should be very very interesting indeed. If charges are made then the prosecution will need top class lawyers in my opinion.