4 ms·

"White’s arrest took place in November 2014, but the case has remained largely under-wraps because of the UK’s strict court reporting rules, which prohibit jour

"White’s arrest took place in November 2014, but the case has remained largely under-wraps because of the UK’s strict court reporting rules, which prohibit journalists from covering some cases before their conclusion." Any UK users want to comment on this? I was unaware this was a thing in the UK, and it seems like a law ripe for abuse. Should trials like this be allowed to go on in secret?

teh_klev 8y ago
The trials aren't "secret", they're still held in open court and with a jury picked from the public. It just means that a judge has prevented press coverage of the trial because it's likely to be contentious. Unfortunately we can't trust certain corners of the press to dryly report the facts of the trial rather than sensationalise their coverage and create salacious headlines which may influence the jury (e.g. Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Sun...). See para 4: > This is to stop suspects facing "trial by media," and in order to let cases run their course.
- threwawasy1228 8y ago
  In the US the jury is merely sequestered off from all electronics to prevent this in trials that seem to be taking this sort of turn, and then the media is free to report whatever they want. The public has a right to know that some has or has not been arrested. How are people supposed to contest or protest a arrest that is made in secret that the press isn't allowed to report on?
  - teh_klev 8y ago
    There are no "secret" arrests. The press have simply been told by a judge that there are reporting restrictions on the case (doesn't mean they can't report the fact there is a case, who the defendant is - provided they're an adult - and what the case is about). > then the media is free to report whatever they want And there is the reason why certain cases in the UK have reporting restrictions. It's to prevent wild speculation, moral panic and all sorts being written that aren't facts of the case. It's impossible to keep jurors sequestered from all news sources. Even if they're holed up in a hotel for the duration of the case they could turn on the telly or a radio and see/hear reporting that has an axe to grind against the accused. You can still round up a group of supporters to make a noise outside the courts, no-one is preventing that from happening. In reality, it's likely the press haven't been told they can't report anything about the case, it's more than likely it's just not that interesting for them any more, and they already had their pound of flesh beating the moral panic drum about Silk Road #1, Tor, "The Dark Web" and the like. None of this is front page, stop-the-press, headline making news (even the BBC have relegated this to a "regional" local news story). And it's probably just too much hassle to pass a story by the news outlet's legal department when there's other scoops to be had.
    - tomatotomato37 8y ago
      >Even if they're holed up in a hotel for the duration of the case they could turn on the telly or a radio and see/hear reporting that has an axe to grind against the accused. That's where the US differs, we do hole jurors up in hotels and actively filter both electronic and physical communication with said jurors to prevent tainting. Yes, it does suck when those jurors are unlucky enough to end up on the rare year-long controversial trial, but the US believes that's an acceptable tradeoff for allowing the media full access to reporting. I guess the crux of this debate is whether it's worth it to sequester jurors for the benefit of the general public or not.
      - teh_klev 8y ago
        I do believe jurors in the UK can be sequestered to hotels, but I suspect this case didn't warrant that level of security or protection. At the end of the day the suspect wasn't exactly a drugs gang kingpin at the top of their food chain.
drak0n1c 8y ago
In 2018 Tommy Robinson was imprisoned in solitary for over a month for doing a video report on the sidewalk near the court where child grooming gangs were facing trial. That led to massive protests and marches, many in the UK do not like that restriction. Footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE8jErMxCUA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE8jErMxCUA The wider public is essentially restricted from knowing about trial proceedings in the UK. As a result it's not unusual for attention or knowledge about major cases to die off after the initial notice, even though the court cases go on for years.
- pseudolus 8y ago
  Tommy Robinson was imprisoned for contempt of court - violating a court order which prohibited filming or photographing. Essentially, he was attempting to film defendants who, at the time, had not been determined to be guilty but whose case was pending before a jury. Relative to the "massive protests and marches", they had less to do with the perceived and perhaps actual infringement of speech and more to do with the fact that they were in support of an individual associated with the UK far right [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)
- teh_klev 8y ago
  > where child grooming gangs were facing trial Let me fix that for you: "where suspected child grooming gangs were facing trial" - innocent until proven guilty. > In 2018 Tommy Robinson was imprisoned in solitary for over a month This isn't true and is sensationalising the facts. Tommy Robinson's imprisonment had been recorded as a criminal rather than a civil offence which affects contact with the outside world (as it does with all criminal offenders incarcerated in the UK). "The failings also meant Robinson was recorded as a criminal, rather than civil, prisoner and deprived of visits, free communications and other freedoms he should have been allowed."[0] Also Robinson, due to his notoriety, was not jailed with the general population for his own safety: "The appeal was launched outside the 28-day time limit for challenging convictions, but was allowed after judges heard that legal meetings were delayed by Robinson being held in “effective solitary confinement” for his own safety."[0] It would seem that even convicted and jailed criminals aren't huge fans of Robinson's racist activities. > That led to massive protests and marches Only by the far right (BNP and EDL) who are still very much a minority in the UK. [0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-free-prison-bail-appeal-hearing-edl-leader-leeds-a8472921.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-f...
belorn 8y ago
It need to be a balance between the need of transparancy in the legal system and the abuse from court of public opinion (often refereed as trial by media). It is sadly very common to ready stories of suspects being beaten or receiving death threats after the accused name get posted on social media. The criminals that do this don't get caught near enough to be a deterrent, so I can understand if UK legal system take steps to prevent it.

teh_klev 8y ago

The trials aren't "secret", they're still held in open court and with a jury picked from the public. It just means that a judge has prevented press coverage of the trial because it's likely to be contentious. Unfortunately we can't trust certain corners of the press to dryly report the facts of the trial rather than sensationalise their coverage and create salacious headlines which may influence the jury (e.g. Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Sun...). See para 4: > This is to stop suspects facing "trial by media," and in order to let cases run their course.

threwawasy1228 8y ago
In the US the jury is merely sequestered off from all electronics to prevent this in trials that seem to be taking this sort of turn, and then the media is free to report whatever they want. The public has a right to know that some has or has not been arrested. How are people supposed to contest or protest a arrest that is made in secret that the press isn't allowed to report on?
- teh_klev 8y ago
  There are no "secret" arrests. The press have simply been told by a judge that there are reporting restrictions on the case (doesn't mean they can't report the fact there is a case, who the defendant is - provided they're an adult - and what the case is about). > then the media is free to report whatever they want And there is the reason why certain cases in the UK have reporting restrictions. It's to prevent wild speculation, moral panic and all sorts being written that aren't facts of the case. It's impossible to keep jurors sequestered from all news sources. Even if they're holed up in a hotel for the duration of the case they could turn on the telly or a radio and see/hear reporting that has an axe to grind against the accused. You can still round up a group of supporters to make a noise outside the courts, no-one is preventing that from happening. In reality, it's likely the press haven't been told they can't report anything about the case, it's more than likely it's just not that interesting for them any more, and they already had their pound of flesh beating the moral panic drum about Silk Road #1, Tor, "The Dark Web" and the like. None of this is front page, stop-the-press, headline making news (even the BBC have relegated this to a "regional" local news story). And it's probably just too much hassle to pass a story by the news outlet's legal department when there's other scoops to be had.
  - tomatotomato37 8y ago
    >Even if they're holed up in a hotel for the duration of the case they could turn on the telly or a radio and see/hear reporting that has an axe to grind against the accused. That's where the US differs, we do hole jurors up in hotels and actively filter both electronic and physical communication with said jurors to prevent tainting. Yes, it does suck when those jurors are unlucky enough to end up on the rare year-long controversial trial, but the US believes that's an acceptable tradeoff for allowing the media full access to reporting. I guess the crux of this debate is whether it's worth it to sequester jurors for the benefit of the general public or not.
    - teh_klev 8y ago
      I do believe jurors in the UK can be sequestered to hotels, but I suspect this case didn't warrant that level of security or protection. At the end of the day the suspect wasn't exactly a drugs gang kingpin at the top of their food chain.

drak0n1c 8y ago

In 2018 Tommy Robinson was imprisoned in solitary for over a month for doing a video report on the sidewalk near the court where child grooming gangs were facing trial. That led to massive protests and marches, many in the UK do not like that restriction. Footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE8jErMxCUA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE8jErMxCUA The wider public is essentially restricted from knowing about trial proceedings in the UK. As a result it's not unusual for attention or knowledge about major cases to die off after the initial notice, even though the court cases go on for years.

pseudolus 8y ago
Tommy Robinson was imprisoned for contempt of court - violating a court order which prohibited filming or photographing. Essentially, he was attempting to film defendants who, at the time, had not been determined to be guilty but whose case was pending before a jury. Relative to the "massive protests and marches", they had less to do with the perceived and perhaps actual infringement of speech and more to do with the fact that they were in support of an individual associated with the UK far right [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)
teh_klev 8y ago
> where child grooming gangs were facing trial Let me fix that for you: "where suspected child grooming gangs were facing trial" - innocent until proven guilty. > In 2018 Tommy Robinson was imprisoned in solitary for over a month This isn't true and is sensationalising the facts. Tommy Robinson's imprisonment had been recorded as a criminal rather than a civil offence which affects contact with the outside world (as it does with all criminal offenders incarcerated in the UK). "The failings also meant Robinson was recorded as a criminal, rather than civil, prisoner and deprived of visits, free communications and other freedoms he should have been allowed."[0] Also Robinson, due to his notoriety, was not jailed with the general population for his own safety: "The appeal was launched outside the 28-day time limit for challenging convictions, but was allowed after judges heard that legal meetings were delayed by Robinson being held in “effective solitary confinement” for his own safety."[0] It would seem that even convicted and jailed criminals aren't huge fans of Robinson's racist activities. > That led to massive protests and marches Only by the far right (BNP and EDL) who are still very much a minority in the UK. [0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-free-prison-bail-appeal-hearing-edl-leader-leeds-a8472921.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-f...

belorn 8y ago

It need to be a balance between the need of transparancy in the legal system and the abuse from court of public opinion (often refereed as trial by media). It is sadly very common to ready stories of suspects being beaten or receiving death threats after the accused name get posted on social media. The criminals that do this don't get caught near enough to be a deterrent, so I can understand if UK legal system take steps to prevent it.