RichardPrice
Topic Author
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

Ipswich Man Charged With Murders

Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:17 pm

48 year old Stephen Wright is appearing in court today charged with the murder of 5 Ipswich prostitutes. Tom Stephens, the first man arrested, has been released on police bail pending further enquiries but has not yet been charged with anything.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6202343.stm

So, how many people condemned Tom Stephens immediately when he was arrested?
 
Thom@s
Posts: 11674
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 2:03 am

RE: Ipswich Man Charged With Murders

Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:26 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Thread starter):
Tom Stephens

Must be thrilled to have his name published all over the press if he turns out innocent...

I thought the identety of suspects were meant to be confidential?

Thom@s
"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
 
ThomasCook757
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:01 am

RE: Ipswich Man Charged With Murders

Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:29 pm

Quoting Thom@s (Reply 1):
Must be thrilled to have his name published all over the press if he turns out innocent...

I thought the identety of suspects were meant to be confidential?

They are.

If this man does turn out innocent i do feel sorry for him. He has had his name splashed all over the press. People will still link him to the 5 murders.
 
RichardPrice
Topic Author
Posts: 4474
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:12 am

RE: Ipswich Man Charged With Murders

Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:35 pm

Quoting Thom@s (Reply 1):

I thought the identety of suspects were meant to be confidential?



Quoting ThomasCook757 (Reply 2):

They are.

No, they arent. Theres no law against the British press releasing the name of suspects in cases unless they are under the age of 18 or naming the suspect could easily reveal the identity of another suspect or victim under the age of 18.

There is a limit on what can be released, but its not strict:

Quote:

Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 it is criminal contempt of court to publish anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired. It only applies where proceedings are active, and the Attorney-General has issued guidance as to when he believes this to be the case, and there is also statutory guidance. The clause prevents the newspapers and media from publishing material that is too extreme or sensationalist about a criminal case until the trial is over and the jury has given its verdict.

Section 2 of the Act limits the common law presumption that conduct may be treated as contempt regardless of intention: now only cases where there is a substantial risk of serious prejudice to a trial are affected.

Releasing the name of the suspect, while it might destroy him publically, does not affect the nature of the case against him as his name would be public knowledge within the court anyway.

In any case, these names were not released by the Police, they were uncovered by journalists (thats what the term 'known locally as' means).
 
planesarecool
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: Ipswich Man Charged With Murders

Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:15 pm

Quoting ThomasCook757 (Reply 2):
If this man does turn out innocent i do feel sorry for him. He has had his name splashed all over the press. People will still link him to the 5 murders.

Well it was him who spoke to BBC journalists and the Sunday Mirror in the first place. Had he not, it would have probably remained private, as the police never named him.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Ipswich Man Charged With Murders

Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:43 pm

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):

Releasing the name of the suspect, while it might destroy him publically, does not affect the nature of the case against him as his name would be public knowledge within the court anyway.

In this case the press went far beyond releasing his name; they made ridiculous links with other crimes, released his address and the jobs he'd undertaken in his life and went out to destroy his character.

Lord Goldsmith, despite his failings when it comes to standing up to BAE, agrees:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6200501.stm
Your bone's got a little machine
 
kaddyuk
Posts: 3697
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:04 am

RE: Ipswich Man Charged With Murders

Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:27 pm

People should remain anonymous when accused of crimes untill proven guilty.

Innocent people can have their lives destroyed by allegations and false stories created by the press.
Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
 
Banco
Posts: 14343
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 11:56 pm

RE: Ipswich Man Charged With Murders

Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:21 am

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
Releasing the name of the suspect, while it might destroy him publically, does not affect the nature of the case against him as his name would be public knowledge within the court anyway.

Where this differs is in the amount of discussion and information in the media following his arrest. Identifying the name of someone arrested is one thing (where the UK differs is that potential suspects yet to be arrested are not usually disclosed), trawling through his private life and explicitly linking him to crimes is disgraceful conduct by the media.

Lord Goldsmith was in a difficult position, since he couldn't warn of prejudicing a trial when he hadn't (and hasn't) even been charged. How can you prejudice a trial that might not happen? But even if the courts throw out any attempt by the defence in either case to state that a fair trial has been prejudiced, I wouldn't be in the least surprised to see a contempt of court action brought by the Attorney General over this. I believe one paper had a headline today reading "Strangler Arrested" (referring to the image previously published), which must surely be beyond the pale. Note:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 3):
anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired.

states "real risk", not that justice is actually impaired. There could well be a case to answer here. Judges tend not to look too favourably on the media behaving this way.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests