child snatch attempt: UPDATE suspect taken into custody

[Keef]

Er, sorry if anyone found that post offensive vy the way :-$

[clare]

Relieved to hear (hopefully) they've got their man.

I've let my Year 5 daughter walk to school (Goodrich) and my Year 8 daughter (Charter). I told them what's happenend and to stay with friends and to kick up almighty fuss if anything happens.

Yes Keef- pretty offensive post but a lot of people thinking it I guess.....

[Keef]

Apologies, no offence intended. It was sort of tongue in cheek, although I do hope he gets locked up if he's the right man!

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I hope this is the guy, I've been too scared for my youngest daughter to go to the local shops, library or brownies by herself. I don't want to end up being an overprotective mum, but it's been hard not to with all these attempted abductions.

Keef - I agree with you!

[sage]

Just a thought, for those who it may turn out are actually innocent. If you were walking or jogging down the road and someone jumped out of an unmarked car/van and tried to grab you wouldn't you put up a fight? So everyone is guilty if they are picked up by the police? Their reputation damaged because they have been accused even though they may be completely innocent. How many times do we have to have a miscarriage of justice because the public want a ?quick fix? and the police must be seen to do exactly that? Condemning someone because they are picked up by the police is not a conviction; it is exactly that, being picked up for questioning. And no, the police do not need evidence to pick you up off the street. God help the sanity of anyone who is innocent and is put through a terrible interrogation by the police over a crime to do with children. This man may be very, very innocent, yet you all condemn him. Hope to God that someone close to you does not have to undergo this ordeal when innocent.

[Mark]

Sage said:

"If you were walking or jogging down the road and someone jumped out of an unmarked car/van and tried to grab you wouldn't you put up a fight?"

Not if they identified themselves as Police first, no way, but as we don't know the facts we can carry on speculating whether he put up a fight or not, whether he's innocent or guilty, whether God will help his sanity or not. I for one like the fact that the Police acted on this, you can't accuse this of being a quick fix, they acted on a crime, simple as. If this was a big story in the press and they were being accused of not doing something then yes, you maybe right, but this was a discreet operation and they had nothing to prove.

[TillieTrotter]

Sage - this guy was neither walking nor jogging down the road, he fitted profile and was lurking near yet another school. Plain clothes police must have been watching all the local schools. A marked police van flew down to join them like bats out of hell. I think that pretty much knew they had their guy. Anyway, a few people witnessed this, noone knows his name, so I think in this instance you dont have to worry about an innocent buy being branded before proven guilty. There will always be miscarriages of justice and I feel totally sorry for those that get their lives ruined by that. However, there is no solution that I can see to stop these miscarriages, sometimes, someone will be wrongly arrested.

[TillieTrotter]

Morning Mark, early birds............

[flong]

Speaking as a journalist who learned the hard way about the contempt of court laws that operate in this country, I think the admin ought to get rid of that last post pretty damned swiftly.

[Administrator]

Done - please could explain for why it had to be removed.

If readers of the forum know something is potentially wrong/illegal/offensive etc then we appreciate it when we are told such as in this instance. There is a link below each message "Report this message" and that will alert us. Alternatively email the forum and tell us.

Regards

[bawdy-nan]

Contempt of Court laws apply when "proceedings are active". That usually means when an arrest has been made. You must publish nothing that cause ?a substantial risk of serious prejudice? to any possible trial in the future.

In this case some forum posts seem to be suggesting that the perpetrator of the attempted child snatch has been caught. This would imply guilt and therefore prejudice any future proceedings. Its more of a problem online because it can be recalled and there's less of a fade factor.

Reckoning somebody "did it" is a problem.

Contempt of court is a criminal offence and carries serious penalties ? an unlimited fine and/or up to two years imprisonment of the relevant personnel responsible for the offending publication or broadcast.

The current Attorney General seems less than comfortable in applying the law (recent Suffolk murders, Cash for Honours "row" being some prominent examples) but its probably not ideal to rely on that.

[TillieTrotter]

Flong - are you talking about my post. If I have said something untoward please say so that I can correct it. Thanks

[Asset]

I have a bit more info on this incident for those that are concerned it may be a case of mistaken identity or for those that are just interested.

The man who was apprehended outside Charter school yesterday had attempted something with a girl on her way to school. She got away and the police were called. As she was sitting in the police car reportig the incident she ID'd him driving away in his car. At this point the car was stopped by police and the kerfuffle ensued and he has been arrested.

I was told this today by my school's office who had in turn been informed by the police of the developments. The schools are given this information as it is in their interest to be kept abreast of the situation.

Of course, it may not be the same guy who has been attempting to abduct girls from local schools in recent days.

[Asset]

ok if you need to delete my post oops sorry, hadn't read contempt of court stuff

[Brendan]

It would be interesting to know who would be held liable, the person posting or the administrators of the website. I am not familiar with the law in regard to internet forums. I wonder if any precedent has been established as to how much accountability the administrators of sight have for the content posted by random people.

Sorry, a bit off topic there.

[snorky]

No one is random any longer - there are requirements to post on forums and a responsibility of the owbner/ admin to keep a full record of who is doing what.

its best never to speculate on "works in progress" as they say

PS If a van screeched up and a bunch of filth piled onto me & was hadnt done owt, I am sure I would not" come quietly" as they used to say on Dixon of Dock Green

[mockney piers]

If anyone does have genuine knowledge about this area we'd probably appreciate some good advice as this forum has allegedly strayed into some grey legal areas where the poor administrator doesn't really know where he/it/we posters stand.

I may be a dab hand at searching t'internet but legalese leaves me absolutely mystified.

[Mark]

Just to answer that one if I may, the East Dulwich Forum acts as soon as possible when informed of posts that are offensive/illegal etc. The forum would be accountable if it didn't act on some legal matters so it always errs on the side of caution. It's meant to be a useful, informative and fun place for the community and has nothing to gain from breaking the law.

OK, as the Administrator would say, back on topic please.

[Asset]

contempt of court

[flong]

I think it's pretty much covered in the posts above. Once proceedings are active - which is usually taken from the time of an arrest, but can be interpreted even more tightly - strict-liability contempt comes into effect. When this happens, there's very little you can publish about the case (and posting on a forum counts as much as publishing as does printing in a national paper). If identification is a likely issue at trial, you have to be very, very careful indeed.

Granted, a small local web forum is unlikely to halt a trial and have a case thrown out; but how would we feel if it did?

(And sorry to harp on, but there is still material up on this thread that is pretty much textbook contempt of court... Anything that alleges "they've probably got the right man" is going against the law.)

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Don't want to rain on the forum parade, but there are also issues for internet hosts re: lible law and since 2006, dissemination of material likely to encourage terrorism to think about. I'd personally argue that reports on the deaths in Iraq may possibly fall under any encouragement of terrorism, but news, opinion and political discussion are important for a democracy (Handyside v UK) and are supposed to be protected under the freedom of expression Art 10 ECHR.

Anyway it would be very unusual for an internet host to be held liable if they remove the offending material after attention is drawn to it.

[DaveR]

If anybody is really interested in the contempt issue, this is the view of the House of Lords from the leading case, re Lonrho plc:

"The only safe course, we think, is to apply the test imposed by the statutory language according to its ordinary meaning, without any preconception derived from A-G v Times Newspapers Ltd as to what kind of publication is likely to impede or prejudice the course of justice. The question whether a particular publica-tion, in relation to particular legal proceedings which are active, creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in those proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced is ultimately one of fact. Whether the course of justice in particular proceedings will be impeded or prejudiced by a publication must depend pri-marily on whether the publication will bring influence to bear which is likely to divert the proceedings in some way from the course which they would otherwise have followed. The influence may affect the conduct of wit-nesses, the parties or the court. Before proceedings have come to trial and before the facts have been found, it is easy to see how critical public discussion of the issues and criticism of the conduct of the parties, particularly if a party is held up to public obloquy, may impede or prejudice the course of the proceedings by influencing the conduct of witnesses or parties in relation to the proceedings. If the trial is to be by jury, the possibility of prejudice by advance publicity directed to an issue which the jury will have to decide is obvious. The possibility that a professional judge will be influenced by anything he has read about the issues in a case which he has to try is very much more remote. He will not consciously allow himself to take account of any-thing other than the evidence and argument presented to him in court."

The general rule is that fair discussion is unlikely to be contempt, and there is a presumption in favour of allowing reporting of anything said in open court

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Phew - Admin, you can breath easy, it's in the public domain here, so you're off the hook!!

http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200southlondonheadlines/tm_headline=teen-is-arrested-in-child-snatch-fears%26method=full%26objectid=19397649%26siteid=50100-name_page.html

[Brendan]

So if flagrant statements about the guilt/innocence of, shall we say a suspect to a crime who has recently been arrested, are published on a community forum where they could be read by local people who are likely to be called as witnesses it could constitute contempt of court.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So if flagrant statements about the

> guilt/innocence of, shall we say a suspect to a

> crime who has recently been arrested, are

> published on a community forum where they could be

> read by local people who are likely to be called

> as witnesses it could constitute contempt of

> court.

I think you actually have to name someone, or give info away which makes that person easily identifiable for it to be considered contempt.