4 ms·
Yeah that judgement was crazy. It has been spun as being about protecting the identity of victims of sexual offences, but I don't believe that for a moment beca
by ajb 5y ago
Yeah that judgement was crazy. It has been spun as being about protecting the identity of victims of sexual offences, but I don't believe that for a moment because the judgement contained a detailed account of how you could find the accusers from Murray's articles. So I personally had no idea who they were when I read his article originally, but it was easy to figure out from the judgement. If what they cared about was protecting the identities, the judgement would never have been written that way.
- pydry 5y agoIIRC the argument was that by "identifying" the supposed victims he "could have" prejudiced the trial. The UK has exceptionally strict laws surrounding interference with an ongoing trial. It's much easier to get somebody on that than it is most crimes if you're motivated. The judge seems to have been lashing out after failing to convict Alex Salmond and reading the blog posts which lampooned her. They didn't come after him while the trial was in progress. Tommy Robinson was also convicted on similar charges of attempting to prejudice a trial.
- teh_klev 5y agoNot only this. Before the criminal trial there were no restrictions on reporting the identity of the accusers. Murray had even pointed this out in his affidavit to the court that he had chosen not to though it would have been quite legitimate to do so at that time.
- BehindBlueEyes 5y agoI'm not surprised. I haven't had much faith in the system protecting identities since the time I had to move for witness protection only to find my new address revealed to all parties in the summons to the hearing.