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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 20 2017, @03:41PM
You seem to suffer from the same confusion as our wonderful tabloid press, namely misunderstanding the difference between 'the public interest' and 'what the public is interested in'; the former is news, the latter is gossip. "News" should be reports of how greedy bastards like Larry Ellison and Rupert Murdoch, who do not operate in the same fields and are thus able to be friends, are conspiring to destroy other greedy bastards like Brin and Page from Google, yet instead we get "celebrity" churnalism and spiteful vomit from the likes of the Daily Fail et al.
It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest this man's life - and the lives of his family and friends - won't be changed by having his name made public along with its association with this awful case. The "no smoke without fire" adherents will poison the rest of their lives, despite there being no charge, let alone a conviction.