Lonan3 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Manx Radio News Item Three men accused of attempted rape, unlawful sexual intercourse and inciting a person under the age of 16 to commit acts of gross indecency have had all the charges against them withdrawn. ---, --- & --- had faced a total of 61charges. Linda Watt, prosecuting, told the court the charges had been dropped because the alleged victim had withdrawn her statement of complaint. Since the case was dropped, why did Manx Radio consider it necessary to attach the names of the accused to this item? Surely the fact is that mud sticks and, as the complaint had been withdrawn, there's no reason to include the names? Incidentally, I don't know any of the people involved in this so it isn't a personal matter - I just don't think it's a very fair way of doing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallybug Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 There is no need - and I don't think that defendants should be named (especially in cases like this) until such time as they have been convicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I agree. I don't know them either, but in this day and age mud sticks even more than usual and the three (and especially their lawyer) should perhaps have got the deemster to say they should not be named. Many people will now make a judgement and an assumption about these people e.g. ask themselves "why were they actually named - surely there must be something in it if this got to MR?" and "given 61 charges it sounds like it was properly investigated - so why was it withdrawn - pressure/too emotional?" etc. Only those involved know whether that might be true, completely false or somewhere in between. However, surely we need to defend the principle that you are 'innocent until proven guilty'. This has happended in quite a few cases in the UK where e.g. an accused rapist has been named, then cleared, and his accuser not named at all. I think publishing the names of the 'innocent' can encourage all kinds of false accusations - and easily lead to lives being ruined maliciously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I am assuming that the case had already been to Court and then been adjourned so the names of the men had already been in the paper/news etc. By naming them this time, it lets everyone know that they are no longer under investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Hazard Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I am assuming that the case had already been to Court and then been adjourned so the names of the men had already been in the paper/news etc. By naming them this time, it lets everyone know that they are no longer under investigation. I agree.. even if it hadn't been to court and was still a police enquiry it's safe to say quite a few people would've known about it. Surely a case of clearing their names rather than naming and shaming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 The law on this has yo yo'd about over the years. Initially victims of rape ere given anonymity, then alleged perpetrators, then the anonymity of alleged perpetrators was taken away. I think, given its innocent until proven guilty, that all accused should be entitled to anonymity until convicted and all victims should be shielded as well I am well awre that after a surveillance operation by the police during which over 40 men were arrersted for alleged indecency offences 2 committed suicide due to fera of being named or actually being named. At the end of day many were not proceeded against even though charged and names published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stookie Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Is it because reporting restrictions aren't usually lifted for the trial (are the defendants able to waive this privilege?) but when the trial is over that doesn't apply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 No thats different. Reporting restrictions only aply to cases which are going to commital for general gaol (crown court). That is so jury memebers cannot read about it and comer to conclusions in advance. In the old days there was a full hearign of all the evidence in public. In effect you got two trials. The press reported trial one, the committal and it could prejudice trial two, in front of the jury. So reporting restrictions were brought in. Now committals happen on paper anyway without any eveidence being herad or considered. Yes a Defendant can have restrictions lifted at that stage. Everyone gets their name published except juveniles and female rape victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I too thought it rather strange, in that the three were named, but also that with 61 charges the victim decided to withdraw her complaint. Very strange - as usual, probably much more to it than meets the eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I too thought it rather strange, in that the three were named, but also that with 61 charges the victim decided to withdraw her complaint. Very strange - as usual, probably much more to it than meets the eye. Maybe you hit on why ... oops .... the newspaper named them by accident. They should sue if they think they've been unfairly treated. I for one would want to make sure a retraction was issued if I was wrongly accused and charges were dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.