Reporting Restrictions

Why do reporting restrictions exist and what do they cover?

Reporting restrictions exist reports of committal proceedings, preparatory hearings (Crown Court) in serious fraud cases, divorce and matrimonial cases and certain sex cases. Courts also have power to order the postponement of the reporting of a case while there is danger of it causing prejudice, usually when people are tried separately on charges arising from the same incident or where the accused is also a defendant in other proceedings. The restrictions do not apply if the accused person applies to have them lifted, the magistrates decide not to commit, or the court decides to deal with the case summarily. If the court commits some people and tries others summarily, evidence relevant to those dealt with summarily may be reported. If one or more of the accused wants the restrictions lifted and others want them to stay, the court gives a ruling. Reports from divorce courts and magistrates' court matrimonial hearings may contain only names, addresses and occupations of the parties and witnesses, a concise statement of the charges, defence and counter-charges on which evidence has been given, submissions and decisions on points of law, the judgment and any observations of the court. Even when there is no legal prohibition, complainants in other sex cases should be identified only after reference to the news desk or senior production staff.

What is a Section 39 Order?

Section 39 is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 of General Provisions as to Proceedings in Court.The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It consolidated all existing child protection legislation for England and Wales into one act. It was preceded by the Children and Young Persons Act 1920 and the Children Act 1908. It is modified by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and the Children and Young Persons Act 2008. Sections 39 and 49 are used to protect the identity of children and young people who appear in court as witnesses, victims and suspects. Journalists may not give the following about the accused: name, address, school, still or moving image and any particulars likely to lead to the identification of any person aged under 18 concerned in the proceedings.

What restrictions cover elections – when does the election period start ahead of this years General Election?

What is the age of criminal responsibility in the UK?

The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old. This means that children under 10 can’t be arrested or charged with a crime. There are other punishments that can be given to children under 10 who break the law. Children between 10 and 17 can be arrested and taken to court if they commit a crime. They are treated differently from adults and are: dealt with by youth courts,
given different sentences or sent to special secure centres for young people, not adult prisons. Young people aged 18 are treated as an adult by the law. If they’re sent to prison, they’ll be sent to a place that holds 18 to 25-year-olds, not a full adult prison.

Why did the judge lift the reporting restrictions in the case of the Bulger killers? Was this the right thing to do, back up your points.

At the close of the trial, the judge lifted reporting restrictions and allowed the names of the killers to be released, saying "I did this because the public interest overrode the interest of the defendants... There was a need for an informed public debate on crimes committed by young children." Sir David Omand later criticized this decision and outline the difficulties created by it in his 2010 review of the probation service's handling of the case. I think this was the right thing to do as the criminals did such a horrendous crime which effects the victims as well as interest for the public. Also why should the defendants be allowed to hide there identity when victims identity was open to the public.

What is Operation Yewtree? Who has their identity protected in this investigation and why?

Operation Yewtree is a controversial police investigation into sexual abuse allegations, predominantly the abuse of children, against the British media personality Jimmy Savile and others. The investigation, led by the Metropolitan Police Service, started in October 2012. After a period of assessment it became a full criminal investigation, involving inquiries into living people as well as Savile. On 19 October 2012 the Metropolitan Police reported that more than 400 lines of enquiry had been assessed and over 200 potential victims had been identified. By 19 December, eight people had been questioned; the total number of alleged victims was 589, of whom 450 alleged abuse by Savile. The report of the investigations into the activities of Savile himself was published, as Giving Victims a Voice, in January 2013. Operation Yewtree continued as an investigation into others, some but not all linked with Savile.

Operation Yewtree has been criticised as a witch-hunt, what are your thoughts on this? Give examples to back up points.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1435289/Reporting-restrictions.html
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/12/section/39
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_and_Young_Persons_Act_1933
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ersmmanual/ersm30450.htm
https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yewtree

Law - Contempt of Court

Contempt of Court

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies authority, justice, and dignity of the court. It manifests itself in willful disregard of or disrespect for the authority of a court of law, which is often behavior that is illegal because it does not obey or respect the rules of a law court. As explained in the People's Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill, "there are essentially two types of contempt: being rude, disrespectful to the judge or other attorneys or causing a disturbance in the courtroom, particularly after being warned by the judge and willful failure to obey an order of the court. Contempt proceedings are especially used to enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions. When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue a court order that in the context of a court trial or hearing declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority, called "found" or "held in contempt"; this is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the court's normal process.

A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems. The client or person must be proven to be guilty before he/she will be punished.

Strict Liability Rule

Strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by her or his acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of mens rea). Strict liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortuous intent. The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases.

A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center. No matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs. In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs. If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred, additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions.

Contempt of Court Case 

Four national newspaper groups have today apologized for publishing false allegations about Robert Murat and two other people over claims they were involved in the abduction of Madeleine McCann, and agreed to pay £600,000 in libel damages. In a statement read out in the high court, News International, Mirror Group Newspapers, Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers apologized to Murat, an official suspect in the McCann case, and two others, and acknowledged making "false claims" about them. Eleven daily and Sunday titles published by the four groups are expected to run apologies to Murat and the two others tomorrow and at the weekend.

In total, it is understood that the four newspaper groups will pay out at least £800,000 in damages: £600,000 to Murat and six-figure sums to the two other claimants. The apologies and damages were claimed from Express Newspapers titles the Daily Express, Sunday Express and Daily Star; Associated's Daily Mail, London Evening Standard and Metro; MGN's Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Daily Record; and News International's Sun and News of the World. The court heard that the papers have in excess of 15 million readers and that between them almost 100 articles were written mentioning either Murat or the two other claimants, Sergey Malinka and Mikala Walczuch.

I think the outcome was right as the newspapers published false allegations regarding innocent people which can damage there reputations which is why they should of been punished for there actions. The outcome I feel was reasonable and justified as the newspapers who published the stories at the time made a lot of money out of it which is why it was only right to reward the victims with a money based reward.