“Criminal suspects who have been arrested should not normally be named until they are charged, the Home Secretary has said.”
The Independent, 16th May 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“The need for sensation alone has placed Jimmy Tarbuck’s name in the press for being questioned regarding an alleged sexual offence dating back to the 1970s. Jimmy Tarbuck is one of a seemingly never-ending stream of household names being questioned regarding historic sexual offences. Jimmy Tarbuck has merely been questioned. We do not know what the evidence is against him but we know it is insufficient at present to sustain a criminal charge. Why then are we even aware of this story?”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 13th May 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
“An edition of BBC1′s Panorama has breached the Ofcom code after a man who was supposed to remain anonymous was identified by his friends.”
Daily Telegraph, 7th May 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“In our article ‘Rape Defendant Anonymity’ last year ((2012) 176 JPN pp.5-8 and 24-26) we suggested that there was a strong case for banning the publication of the identities of rape defendants prior to any conviction. We included this as part of our submission to Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry into the press, suggesting that he should consider the issue as part of his remit. Tucked away in the depths of the report (The Report into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press, November 29, 2012 at G Ch 3 para.2.39), whether or not in response to our submission the relevant text does not make clear, Leveson proposes that, other than in exceptional circumstances, the names of suspects and arrested people (referred to as ‘arrestees’) should not be published and that police guidance relating to publication should be tightened up to reflect this. The Law Commission disagreed (Contempt of Court: A Consultation Paper, Number 209, Law Commission) but in a judicial response to the Consultation Paper, Lord Justice Treacy and Mr Justice Tugendhat – supported by many other senior Judges, including the President of the Queen’s Bench Division and the Senior Presiding Judge – backed Leveson (A Judicial Response to Law Commission Consultation Paper no.209, March 4, 2013, released April 9, 2013).”
Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 4th May 2013
Source: www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk
“Should we, the public, know who the police have arrested? Do people deserve
anonymity until the point that the police charge them with an offence – or in
the case of some crimes – anonymity until convicted?”
BBC News, 3rd May 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The Independent poll finds strong public support for the controversial view that suspects in sex cases should enjoy the same right to anonymity as defendants.”
The Independent, 2nd May 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Before Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were released from custody, a court ruled that their identities should remain secret. The court granted an injunction which prevents the media or individuals from publishing images which claim to be of Venables and Thompson (whether or not it is them). The injunction is worldwide and applies equally to the internet, social media and mainstream media.”
Attorney General’s Office, 30th April 2013
Source: www.gov.uk/ago
“Data processing practices are evolving faster than the law can adapt to them, according to a senior British lawyer at an international law firm specialising in data protection.”
The Guardian, 12th April 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The identities of suspects who have been arrested could be kept secret from the public, under new plans being drawn up.”
Daily Telegraph, 7th April 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
The Daily Telegraph have recently introduced a limited paywall. Users will be permitted to view 20 Daily Telegraph articles per month for free, after which they will need to pay a subscription fee to access content.
“The UK’s data protection watchdog has highlighted concerns it has with a new information-sharing initiative that has begun operating in the health sector in England.”
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd April 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“A Labour councillor fined £100 after admitting being drunk in a supermarket while in charge of her two-year-old daughter has lost a High Court anonymity fight.”
The Independent, 29th March 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“A nurse due to give evidence at the inquest into the death of Royal hoax call victim Jacintha Saldanha has been granted anonymity to offer protection against similar media interest.”
The Independent, 26th March 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“People who tweeted photos allegedly of child killer Jon Venables are being charged with contempt of court. It’s the latest in a long line of cases that suggest that ordinary social media users need to have a grasp of media law.”
BBC News, 26th February 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The attorney general is taking legal action against several people who published photographs said to show one of James Bulger’s killers.”
BBC News, 25th February 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Anti-rape campaigners have dismissed proposals for alleged rapists to be granted anonymity to avoid lasting stigma if they are cleared.”
The Guardian, 17th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A photograph posted on Twitter that may have exposed the new identity of James Bulger’s killer Jon Venables was on Wednesday night being investigated by the Attorney General’s office as a possible contempt of court.”
Daily Telegraph, 13th February 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“A triple killer guilty of ‘exceptionally horrific’ and ‘unprovoked’ crimes has been granted anonymity to protect his human rights.”
Daily Telegraph, 6th February 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The Commercial Court has resisted an application to anonymise those individuals at Barclays involved in the LIBOR scandal.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 30th January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
