“An inquest into the death of nurse Jacintha Saldanha following a prank phone call last year by two Australian radio hosts has been postponed for a second time.”
The Guardian, 10th September 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The most senior family judge in England and Wales has rejected a legal bid to ban the naming and shaming of social workers in a controversial case which saw a baby taken from his parents against their will.”
Daily Telegraph, 5th September 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Harry Potter creator JK Rowling has accepted a substantial charity donation from the law firm that revealed she was writing under a pseudonym.”
BBC News, 31st July 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“The tension between transparency and individual privacy is part of what makes information rights such a fascinating and important area. When it comes to high-public interest issues involving particular individuals, prevailing wisdom has tended to be something like this: say as much as possible on an open basis, but redact and anonymise so as to protect the identity of the individuals involved. Increasingly, however, transparency is outmuscling privacy. See for example my post about the Tribunal’s order of disclosure, in the FOIA context, of the details of the compensation package of a Chief Executive of an NHS Trust (the case of Dicker v IC (EA/2012/0250).”
Panopticon, 11th July 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
“Anthony Still has been convicted at Chelmsford Crown Court of blackmailing a businessman who paid him £600,000 to stop him revealing details about a secret affair. The businessman, known in court as ‘Barnaby’, decided he could no longer go on paying and went to the police last year. Still was jailed for 11 years.”
Crown Prosecution Service, 28th June 2013
Source: www.cps.gov.uk
“Police are looking at tweets sent following the conviction of Jeremy Forrest to see whether those who identified his victim have broken the law.”
The Guardian, 26th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, has intervened in the debate over so-called secret arrests and said police should confirm the name of a suspect if they have been correctly identified by the media.”
The Guardian, 4th June 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Leading human rights barrister Dinah Rose challenges cabinet minister Ken Clarke over the Government’s extension of the use of secret courts.”
BBC Unreliable Evidence, 5th June 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Two British servicemen were disciplined and fined today for carrying out, respectively, a sexual offence on a young boy and being engaged in racist insults while serving in Afghanistan.”
The Independent, 4th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Reporting restrictions on proceedings concerning a life prisoner should be discharged since the public interest in allowing media organisations to publish reports outweighed the prisoner’s human rights.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 3rd June 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
“Controversial police plans to protect the identity of criminal suspects before they are charged are backed by a large majority of the public, a survey for The Independent has found.”
The Independent, 31st May 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“An Army sniper has been paid £100,000 in compensation after being driven into hiding when Ministry of Defence officials blew his cover.”
Daily Telegraph, 22nd May 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“The High Court has overturned an order granting anonymity to a man who murdered three children in Worcester.”
BBC News, 22nd May 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Controversial plans to protect the identity of suspects arrested by police were in disarray last night after the Director of Public Prosecutions called for more ‘wriggle room’ to name suspects before they were charged.”
The Independent, 21st May 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Police in England and Wales should not name arrested people until they are charged except in ‘clearly identified circumstances’ such as when there is a threat to life, new guidance says.”
BBC News, 20th May 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“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
© Inner Temple Library 2024