The identity of suspects arrested by the police should be publicised before they are charged, the British Court of Appeal has ruled.
In a hugely significant verdict, judges said the public understood that naming a person who had been arrested did not mean they were guilty.
The judgment is a boost for freedom of information campaigners – who have been battling increasing police secrecy.
In the wake of the Leveson report, many forces have become reluctant to name people at the point of arrest – despite the fact that it can encourage witnesses to come forward.
Yesterday’s ruling came in the case of a man who was arrested over allegations of child sex abuse. He was not subsequently charged but his identity was disclosed in open court during the trial of other men.
Newspapers notified the man that, once the trial was over, they planned to report the fact that he had been arrested, along with other details. He objected, saying he would be ‘stigmatised as a suspected paedophile’, and applied for a privacy injunction.
The request was rejected by Mr Justice Tugendhat last year and yesterday the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The man’s lawyers had argued the public did not understand that suspects are ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and naming them breached their privacy.
But Lady Justice Sharp said the principle of open justice must be upheld. She said: ‘Most members of the public understand the presumption of innocence and are able to distinguish between the position of someone who has been (merely) arrested, someone who has been charged, and someone who has been convicted of a criminal offence.
‘The fact of his arrest and other associated information has been extensively referred to in open court, including in public rulings given at criminal trials, and the respondents [the Press] want to report this.’
Historically, police forces have confirmed or denied a suspect has been arrested or interviewed under caution if asked by journalists.
But this changed in the wake of the Leveson report into Press standards which said only in exceptional circumstances should the names of suspects be released.
Naming suspects at the point of arrest has proved important in a string of cases. Further victims of both Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris came forward after their identities emerged.
The man involved in yesterday’s case is appealing to the Supreme Court.
Do you agree with this decision by the Court of Appeals? Knowing our tendency to be presumptuous and to jump to conclusions, will we not convict him before the courts do? Once your name is associated with pedophilia, it will always be associated with pedophilia. Personally, I don't like the decision even though it may help bring some convictions that otherwise might not stand.
In a hugely significant verdict, judges said the public understood that naming a person who had been arrested did not mean they were guilty.
The judgment is a boost for freedom of information campaigners – who have been battling increasing police secrecy.
 |
| The ruling at the Court of Appeal overturns guidance issued in the wake of the Leveson report which said the names of suspects should only be revealed ' in exceptional circumstances' |
Yesterday’s ruling came in the case of a man who was arrested over allegations of child sex abuse. He was not subsequently charged but his identity was disclosed in open court during the trial of other men.
Newspapers notified the man that, once the trial was over, they planned to report the fact that he had been arrested, along with other details. He objected, saying he would be ‘stigmatised as a suspected paedophile’, and applied for a privacy injunction.
The request was rejected by Mr Justice Tugendhat last year and yesterday the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The man’s lawyers had argued the public did not understand that suspects are ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and naming them breached their privacy.
But Lady Justice Sharp said the principle of open justice must be upheld. She said: ‘Most members of the public understand the presumption of innocence and are able to distinguish between the position of someone who has been (merely) arrested, someone who has been charged, and someone who has been convicted of a criminal offence.
‘The fact of his arrest and other associated information has been extensively referred to in open court, including in public rulings given at criminal trials, and the respondents [the Press] want to report this.’
Historically, police forces have confirmed or denied a suspect has been arrested or interviewed under caution if asked by journalists.
But this changed in the wake of the Leveson report into Press standards which said only in exceptional circumstances should the names of suspects be released.
Naming suspects at the point of arrest has proved important in a string of cases. Further victims of both Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris came forward after their identities emerged.
The man involved in yesterday’s case is appealing to the Supreme Court.
Do you agree with this decision by the Court of Appeals? Knowing our tendency to be presumptuous and to jump to conclusions, will we not convict him before the courts do? Once your name is associated with pedophilia, it will always be associated with pedophilia. Personally, I don't like the decision even though it may help bring some convictions that otherwise might not stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment