Anorak Forums » Backlash

1. agw
   Administrator

   Press and media stories coming out of the tragic death of {"outgoing, popular and very friendly..." police released descriptions} British student Meredith Kercher in Italy have undramatically highlighted differences of media controls.

   Already the press has revealed police evidence and much of the police case and an Italian judge says the people arrested showed “indications of their guilt.”

   British courts are much more of a minefield for editors and many could end up in front of Their Worships then M'Lord themselves for the sort of coverage coming out of Italy.
   Journalists have media/court law drummed into them as part of their early training and, even then, there are bear traps and pit falls to negotiate; for instance, in Scotland it is against the law to identify a suspect(that is publish pictures of or describe them or their clothing during an alleged crime) after arrest. Elsewhere in the UK it is between charging and court appearance and once proceedings are started in Scotland and England and Wales all sorts of restrictions are slammed into place. Do you see or hear very much about the alleged serial killer of the alleged East Anglian prostitutes these days?
   Of course not. The trial procedure has started. Although there was a curious out for the media on that one. There was an original suspect and, better still, the suspect was once a special constable. He remains fair game for the "life ruined by mistaken fingering of collar" story. (From what I recall, a not quite accurate description of the attention seeking events of the time)

   The theory is a fair trial means media coverage of a crime should stop once someone is charged.

   Difficult to understand how the three people arrested over Meredith Kercher's killing can get a fair trial. I already have far more intimate details of their personal lives and fantasies and histories than even their mums knew before the arrests.

   The Italian justice system seems as different again and totally opposite to the secrecy laws invoked in the Madeline McCann case by the Portuguese system.
   Both countries are fellow members of the European Union.

   Perhaps the citizens of those countries are equally surprised we have not already burned alleged serial killers at the stake?...then there's all the witches. What ARE we going to do about them?

   Meanwhile, Meredith's body has now been flown home to Britain.

   Posted 2 years ago #

2. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   Throw them in a pond of Merlot?

   Posted 2 years ago #

3. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   a swimming pool of Merlot, it'll get all muddy in a pond and those thieving toads might drink it, or worse still, pee in it......

   Posted 2 years ago #

4. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   Monbazilliac, June, Merlot won't do it. The toads thrive on it.

   Posted 2 years ago #

5. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   and whaddya mean 'ALL' the Witches agw?

   Posted 2 years ago #

6. agw
   Administrator

   If you've got the stake fired up for serial killers...why stop there, witches, people who look jewish, blacks, Scots, Presbyterians, nuns, wops, anyone north of Potters Bar and Anorakians. Burn the lot.
   Only those nice politicians and their female personal aides shall go free.

   Posted 2 years ago #

7. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   Oh Goddess! Someone has 'got' agw hostage!!!

   What about formaldehyde- fragranced doctors, agw-imposter?

   Posted 2 years ago #

8. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   Don't know enough about the different legal systems of the countries making up the EU to comment seriously about this but perhaps someone can shed some light for me?

   Is the amount of information 'released/leaked' to the Media related to differences in how the 'accused' person(s) are viewed under the different legal systems of the countries involved. Is it the case that, whereas the British System views the accused as 'innocent' and the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, other systems may view the accused as 'guilty' and the onus is then on the defendant to prove his/her innocence. Whether the release of information helps or hinders an accused might therefore depend under which system of justice he/she is being tried. As I said, I don't really know much about the different legal systems and so may be talking bollocks. If so, feel free to tell me so!

   A related question to which I hope someone can provide an answer/explanation. When I was a lad, it was often reported that someone 'was helping police with enquiries'. They were then either released without charge, or charged with the offence. Somewhere along the line I got the impression that the 'arrest' stage came when it was decided to charge someone with an offence and their legal rights were read to them.

   Recently, I have noticed that whenever there is a high profile crime, no-one is ever reported as assisting the police with their enquiries. Instead, sometimes dozens of people are 'arrested' in a blaze of publicity - thus creating the impression that the boys in blue are on top of things - only for all those 'arrested' to be quietly 'released' at a later date without charge. Am I mis-remembering or imagining this change in reporting of events? Has the law changed or have we got sloppy with our use of language?

   Posted 2 years ago #

9. Anonymous
   Unregistered

   I've noticed that, and especially sometimes after they have raided the wrong house, ok uncalled for in most cases, but yes sometimes all who have been arrested are freed. Perhaps because the high profile cases are terrorist related , or paedophile which have been going on for some time. We don't hear now about the 'lesser' crimes anymore do we?

   Posted 2 years ago #

10. Mic
    Member

    Talking of arrests and subsequent guilty verdicts, I see that Ronald Castree from sunny Shaw has finally got what he deserved for the Lesley Moleseed murder.

    Castree lived about 1/2 mile from me, on aroad where number 1 son used to have a paper round.

    I find it quite chilling to think that he may probably have spoken to him at some point.

    Ironically, just after Castree's arrest, No1 son had bunked off the paper round for some reason, and I was deputising. The free paper that he delivered often had advertising leaflets with it, and this particular week there was a free sachet of 'Oat-so-simple' to give away.

    How very apt that the day after his arrest, I was shoving thorugh his door a packet of Porridge.

    ('doing porridge' being a nickname for doing time in jail... as an explanation for our transatlantic readers).

    Posted 2 years ago #

11. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    eerie!

    Posted 2 years ago #

12. agw
    Administrator

    An arrestable offence was one for which the penalty on first conviction can be at least five years imprisonment, or for which the penalty is fixed by statute (life imprisonment for murder). Other offences like driving with excess alcohol and special powers granted in the various terrorism legislation have been declared (by the UK Parliament) to be arrestable offences even though a five term would not be appropriate.

    A police officer may arrest without a warrant if he or she has reason to suspect a person is committing, has committed or is about to commit an arrestable offence.

    Helping police with their inquiries and "detained for questioning" are often phrases used to describe interrogation of suspects. The "detained for" statement is a total legal fiction. The police have no right to keep a person at a police station to help with inquiries...unless they have special powers of detention as in the various Terrorism Acts. This is why many lawyers and journalists are very uneasy about some of the wide-sweeping powers granted by recent (last 20 years) of legislation. Some areas of that disquiet stem from actions by or against the IRA and later toughened to cope with the internal threats posed by dissident groups. Tube bombers and so on.

    It should be noted that in one particular case a man was not detained under the Terrorism Act but shot through the head seven times. It had the net effect of detaining him as well as taking his life. He was also totally innocent.

    The police are entitled to question anyone but no person (with the previous complex exceptions) can be compelled to help them by going to, or remaining at, a police station unless they are arrested. This is why the phrase " Arrest under the Terrorism Act" is often used since those powers are changed dramatically in that case.

    Police may not arrest without saying what the charge is, unless the position makes it obvious. Journalists are often not clear what the circumstance are and have to discover who has been charged with what.

    The powers of questioning are time limited and in practise defendants have been detained for many hours without charge while they and witnesses are questioned.

    If an arrested person is released without charge then issues of cases for false arrest or wrongful imprisonment could be brought.

    The whole area is made more confusing and more complex by the introduction of various amendment and additional powers of detention granted under the Terrorism Acts.

    The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the PACE Codes of Practice provide the core framework of police powers and safeguards around stop and search, arrest, detention, investigation, identification and interviewing detainees.

    The UK Government viewpoint was "PACE sets out to strike the right balance between the powers of the police and the rights and freedoms of the public."
    Since the Royal Assent for that Act there are reams of amendments and changed circumstances created by the subsequent ammendments to the Terrorism Acts.

    Basically, if a police officer utters the words "agw I am arresting you under the powers granted to me by the Terrorism Act 2000 as amended by the Gotcha Buddy 'Cos Ye'r A Cheeky Jock/Welsh/Scouse Git Clause 2006" I am in deep water or even up to the oxters in clarts (Google it!) and need a lawyer at once.

    What is the address for my Opinion Fee ?

    Posted 2 years ago #

13. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    So, if one is not under arrest, there is no legal obligation to accompany an officer to a Police Station to assist them in their enquiries. But does a refusal to accept any such 'invitation' to attend a police station or answer questions open one then to the risk of arrest on a charge of 'obstructing the police with their enquiries'?

    Posted 2 years ago #

14. agw
    Administrator

    None at all.
    Refusal to assist a police officer is not a crime.
    Wilfully withholding information which may lead to the detection or prevent the commission of an arrestable offence could constitute an arrestable offence. You would then be arrested.
    Good ain't it?

    Generally speaking, folk are not that stupid and when asked for assistance or information by a uniformed police officer are only too glad to give it. These officers can be asked to put their lives on the line in certain circumstances and apart from the odd very notable exception are wonderfully good at what they do. The average Wooden Top Keeps the Peace and allows the majority of us to be safely tucked up at night.

    Posted 2 years ago #

15. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    Presumably the officer's belief/suspicion that a person might be 'Wilfully withholding information which may lead to the detection or prevent the commission of an arrestable offence' is sufficient to justify an arrest?

    Posted 2 years ago #

16. agw
    Administrator

    That is why he/she holds a Warrant Card. The decision is the officer's responsibility.

    At some point in the procedure, either a senior police officer, prosecution service or magistrate will decide whether an arresting officer has acted correctly. If they are held not to be, the consquences for them are often quite dire.

    Better yet is the position when a plod walks up to a charming young hoodie and says "I have had occasion to Caution you in the past. Haven't I?" When the hoodie replies "No", is he/she withholding information likely to?

    I have missed out one important fact here, the term "arrestable offence" no longer exists in English and Welsh Law and was removed in 2006 when the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was enacted. Its use here is only to help.

    Posted 2 years ago #

17. Anonymous
    Unregistered

    Informative dialogue, thanks both

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.