SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the can-he-hide-it-from-search-engines? dept.
The UK Supreme Court has lifted an anonymity order and ruled that a man arrested but not charged in connection with a high-profile "child sexual grooming" case has no reasonable expectation of privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights:
A man arrested but never charged in connection with an investigation into child sexual grooming has lost a legal battle to keep his identity secret. [...] Seven men were convicted and jailed at the Old Bailey in May 2013 for serious sexual offences in connection with what became known as the "Oxford grooming case". The Supreme Court ruling, by a 5-2 majority, stemmed from an attempt by the Times and the Oxford Mail newspapers to name [him].
BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman described the court's decision as significant, saying it reaffirmed the powerful principle of open justice. The case examined the rights of the press and public under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights to freedom of expression and the rights of [the man] and his family under Article 8.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday July 20 2017, @12:48AM (2 children)
It's not censoring anything. I happen to agree here with the miscarriage of justice. The act is heinous indeed, but he was never charged.
Remember, some dumbass cop arrested a woman for being high on marijuana, and she still deals with bullshit from that even though she was completely and totally cleared by medical examinations and they tried to make *anything* stick for over a month in jail.
Arrest records shouldn't be public because the stigma of kiddie-anything is REAL. It will affect the person for the rest of their life whether or not they've been determined to be innocent. That is precisely because they were simply arrested. How do you defend yourself when there are never any charges? Charges imply they had enough evidence to convince a DA to have a trial. Trials and whether a person was charged should be put into the public record. Arrest records should not be with cops acting like corrupt pieces of shit.
There is no censoring here. The press has no rights (morally and ethically at least) to demand the identity of somebody arrested. They don't have the right to demand anything that is not of public record. Sure they can ask, but that is not the same thing as being guaranteed to receive.
If people are upset about it, I would ask them if they are upset because of the child rape/grooming, or are they upset because they feel this person is getting away with it? That's just the thing; He's innocent because he was just arrested.
You really want the press, which is really the paparazzi these days, acting like ambulance chasers and destroying somebody's life just because they were arrested for something that is highly prized clickbait? Arrest != Charged. When they are charged that's press worthy. Simply arrested really is not, unless you are talking about the "press worthiness" that has destroyed the reputation of journalism itself.
Now if the UK does make arrest records public, then what are we arguing about at all? They already decided the risks were worth knowing, and *anybody* has the rights to review public records. The press included.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday July 20 2017, @06:00AM
I agree with you: arrest records should probably not be public.
But then you also have to re-train a lot of police forces and public prosecutors. In the US, especially, police and prosecutors love a "perp walk", i.e., hinting to the press to be at such-and-such a place at then-o'clock, where the police publicly arrest some high-profile person. At that point, of course, the person is irrevocably connected to the crime in the minds of the public. This also makes it very difficult to find a neutral jury, since almost the entire potential pool of jurors has already been biased by the press coverage.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 20 2017, @07:40PM
It's not censoring anything.
Yes, it absolutely is. FTA:
Giving the Supreme Court's judgment, Lord Sumption said the case related to matters discussed at a public trial and the public interest in allowing press reporting of court proceedings extended to Mr Khuja's identity.
Orders imposed during the magistrates and crown court proceedings prevented Mr Khuja's name from being published to prevent reports potentially prejudicing a future trial.
That's an anonymity order preventing the press from reporting on something that was stated in a public trial. They already knew the name. The government said they can't publish it. That's censorship.