There is no statutory bar on the naming of suspects in criminal cases, but the police and media have stopped doing so since the BBC got a £210 000 bloody nose for breaching Cliff Richard's right to a private life when they filmed the police at his home and named him as a suspect in a ***ual offence case in 2014.
The European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to a private life.
Exactly so.Quote:
Originally Posted by MillersTime
The evidence in criminal cases is often limited. That is, perhaps, particularly so in rape cases where the complainant and suspect are often the only two direct witnesses to what occurred. What that means is that it will frequently be the case that a jury will conclude that is impossible to be sure who is telling the truth.
The. Scottish courts have three verdicts - 'guilty', 'not guilty' and 'not proven'.
I'm not sure what the implications of the third verdict is for the defendant. It strikes me as being a tad unfair - a bit of a 'we're not sure you did it, but don't do it again' approach.
It seems so serious though that someone can accuse a person, man or woman, of rape when the outcome could be not guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrAvon
The stigma attached to it all and the possibility of the persons name being leaked onto media websites must be agonising and traumatic for the individual.
Yes, the stigma attached to ***ual offences can be huge for both parties.
It's a criminal offence to name the complainant in a ***ual offences case no matter what the outcome - several people were convicted of naming Ched Evans' accuser.
As Grist had touched upon, the counter argument for defendants is that naming enables other complainants to come forward (or jump on the compensation legal gravy train as he might say if the circumstances of the case suited him to do so).
And here we are in Rotherham where many Asian rapists and children molesters weren't named early enough nor prosecuted early enough
I don't think not naming played any significant part in what occurred in Rotherham. When you boil the various inquiries down, the main problem was failing to recognise the victims as being victims. Instead, it was convenient to blame them for what was happening.
Complete bullshineQuote:
Originally Posted by KerrAvon
Surely he shouldn’t be allowed to travel, should be a curfew, if he’s guilty then he could go on to do it again (yes some are stupid)
Does the 'not proven' option leave open the door for a retrial whereas the not guilty option means fresh evidence would need to be obtained? Kind of like when a jury here can't come to a decision, so being a hung jury opens up the option of a retrial. I'm speculating though so I may be completely wrong and it may mean something else. Although it definitely whiffs of 'we think you did it but the evidence isn't enough'.Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrAvon