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: 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.