3 ms·

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

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.

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.