child snatch attempt: UPDATE suspect taken into custody

[Mark]

Just to lift the last paragraph from the 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

"Detective Chief Inspector David Ainscough, of Southwark CID, said: "We are reviewing any possible links to recently reported crimes and, in particular, asking if anyone witnessed this incident or has any information to contact us."

Call 020 7232 6222 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111."

So if you did see anything please give them a call.

[flong]

> I think you actually have to name someone, or give

> info away which makes that person easily

> identifiable for it to be considered contempt.

Not at all. If you imply that a person being held for a crime is the one who actually did it, that constitutes contempt whether you name him/her or not. It could still potentially influence a jury, after all.

[Mark]

I'm not disagreeing with you but how come the Sun's front cover today has a photo saying "Doctor Evil, face of bomb suspect medic"? Surely that's implying that he did it?

(I'm talking about a different crime here by the way, just to clarify)

[chumasterp]

Time and distance are the two big factors in libel cases. The Sun's publication can be seen as fleeting, so when the chap comes up for trial (say in six months at the least), if the defence lawyers claim reports have prejudiced the trial the Sun can argue that enough time has passed for the jury not to be able to remember the story. There are precedents now for judges to allow as little as three months between such stories and trials. Problems can arise when papers forget to take stories off their websites.

[bawdy-nan]

I think you mean contempt chumasterp, but you're right about the "fade-factor". Trouble with online stuff is that it remains recallable and isn't used to wrap the proverbial fish and chips.

There also seems little desire to prosecute in the case of media stories that dwell on the "evil" perps of terror ... hmmmm... Its happened before when the London bombing suspects were arrested - again front page pix basically saying gotcha.

The tabloids, and their journalists, do get prosecuted and now, because of new legislation, can be made to pay for the costs of retrying the case.

[Brendan]

So if a jury have fish and chips for lunch during a trial and it is wrapped in.....

Oh never mind I'm being too silly even for myself here.

That aside. What are the consequences? Will the case be thrown out or will it continue or will they have to re-try the case?

[bawdy-nan]

the consequences for the person who is found to have been in contempt of court could be a criminal record, fine and/or imprisonment

the consequences for a trial might be that its abandoned and redone (in the case of the trial of Lee Bowyer the footballer, for example) Not sure whether there have been instances when a trial has been utterly abandoned

in any case you don't have to actually prejudice the trial to be in contempt there has to be a "substantial risk" that it will impede or prejudice the trial

[chumasterp]

Oops, yeah I did mean contempt. :-$

[TillieTrotter]

So, after watching this thread today, I'm at loss to see why my post had to be taken off! I cant recall saying anything that could be seen as contemptious. I'm not being argumentative but would like to know for future reference what was it I said?

[snorky]

Te likes of News Int are usually pretty hot and their lawyers are skilled at pushing the rules of contempt & libel to the limit - though they do sometimes get caught out - in this case of the Sun headlines earlier they would argue that using the word "suspect" is enought to circumnavigate the contempt laws.

Caling him Dr Death would likely be a slander/Libel issue for the individual himself to pursue at some point

[flong]

Mark Wrote:

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

> I'm not disagreeing with you but how come the

> Sun's front cover today has a photo saying "Doctor

> Evil, face of bomb suspect medic"? Surely that's

> implying that he did it?

> (I'm talking about a different crime here by the

> way, just to clarify)

Even the Sun - which sails as close to the wind with the law as it can - put the all-important inverted commas around 'Doctor Evil'.

[snorky]

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 Put yourself in their shoes - assuming you were nicked by the filth and considered yourself innccent, how woulf you feel about a local website bringing the subject up deciding your guilt or innocence beforehand ? ( eg : he had funny eyes/ lived with his mum/ used to go out late at night/ looked at me in a funny way )

Unfort. Its a short hop from concerned local citizens to local Mob, as weve seen in recent years.

[citizenED]

Did I catch it right, are the government acting to increase the employment checks in the NHS because some doctors have allegedly done something wrong. Makes a mockery of the innocent-until-proven-guilty rule.

citizen

[Michael Palaeologus]

Not really. Checking people to ensure that they are innocent is not the same as saying that they are guilty.

I went through a Criminal Records Bureau check because I often work in schools, care homes and other places were vulnerable people are to be found. I have no complaints as I have nothing to be afraid of - except rats and spiders.

We cant ignore the fact that there are people out there wishing to do us harm and if they have found a route in then this has to be blocked.

[Asset]

Just got a letter from the school to say that the man arrested has been charged and is being held on remand.

[shambles]

just to throw my hat in the ring - so to speak re contempt issues.

once a person has been charged with an offence the case becomes sub judice. this means that any reporting of the details of the person charged ie name and details of the alleged offence in the same article may prejudice a jury. the charge details and details of the offence can be reported but not together.

eg.

article 1. joe bloggs of such and such address was charged with theft at sainsburys. he was further charged with assault.

article 2. shoppers intervened in a violent struggle as a 38 year old man attacked a security guard at sainsbury's having been caught stealing.

with regard to an arrest - the press can and do speculate as to the identity of that person but will include words such as 'allegedly' or 'believed' with regard to the offence that they are suspected of having committed as a caveat.

arrest details given by the police are minimal. they may release the age. once info is heard in an open court it is in the public domain and can be reported - unless reporting restrictions apply.

now that someone has been charged - care should be taken to avoid contempt issues!

[Keef]

citizenED Wrote:

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

> Did I catch it right, are the government acting to

> increase the employment checks in the NHS because

> some doctors have allegedly done something wrong.

> Makes a mockery of the

> innocent-until-proven-guilty rule.

>

> citizen

These checks should be done for anyone working with children or vulnerable adults!

Bloody Doctors moan about everything!!! Oh no, we might not automatically walk in to a job when we qualify and have to apply for one and compete with others.... Yeah like EVERYBODY else!!!

Sorry, just get p!ssed at the arrogance in the medical profession!

[mockney piers]

I think citizen was referring to the alleged attempts at what were believed to be bombings by suspects who may or may not hark from places alleged to be in the levant and south asia.

[snorky]

Keef Wrote:

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

> citizenED Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Did I catch it right, are the government acting

> to

> > increase the employment checks in the NHS

> because

> > some doctors have allegedly done something

> wrong.

> > Makes a mockery of the

> > innocent-until-proven-guilty rule.

> >

> > citizen

>

> These checks should be done for anyone working

> with children or vulnerable adults!

>

> Bloody Doctors moan about everything!!! Oh no, we

> might not automatically walk in to a job when we

> qualify and have to apply for one and compete with

> others.... Yeah like EVERYBODY else!!!

>

> Sorry, just get p!ssed at the arrogance in the

> medical profession!

I agree.

theyse always bleating on about Dr. shortages

why not make it easier to become a Dr. - say a handful of GCSE o levels in non science suibjects ?

Surely this is thr way forward ?

[Keef]

;-)

MP, I know that's what citizen was talking about, but I saw my opportunity to have a go at doctors and I took it :))

[citizenED]

You old opportunist, Keef. Having a go at bloody doctors is a brilliant arm-chair sport. Bit like moaning about the weather.

As it is, my post was referring to the fact the Govt. are being very knee-jerk about this. Of course the checks should be in place anyway. It shouldn't take an incident, in this case doctors being accused of something, for the rules to be tightened up. That is very re-active when surely the key is to be proactive. Shutting the door after the horse has bolted.

citizen

[Mark]

It's more like one horse has bolted so only now they're checking the doors on the rest of the stables. Should have been done ages ago, even the lowliest stable hand knows that.

[clare]

Southwark News.05/07/07. Page 3

"A man has been chardge in connection with an attempted child snatch in Dulwich.

James Hayward, 19, from Underhill Road, is facing two charges of abduction,as well as one of possessing an offensive weapon."

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Don't know what's worse, the fact that he lived up the road, or his age. Edited - please be careful what's said now, to quote a previous poster "now that someone has been charged - care should be taken to avoid contempt issues!" - The Administrator

[Keef]

The age is shocking! It also makes me feel more sorry for him. With things like this you tend to demonise people in to horrid dirty old men, but this is barely more than a kid....

Think that should be okay legally.... :-S