Unnamed person arrested and sent straight to jail under media blackout

[original PM]

The unnamed person allegedly mentioned the name of some defendant on trail during a live stream but this name connected to the trail was public knowledge anyways or at least accessible public information. A bit harsh the sentence though, I don't even think it was even a crime, how can mentioning a name in public warrant a custodial sentence ? Also unnamed person was on the road and public pavement during filming and not on the court premises.

It's like being arrested for being there and saying 'turnip' in public.

Well all know what the problem was and we are trying to avoid it.

If after the court case the relevant people are found guilty of the crimes they were supposed to have committed does this alter what is acceptable?

[WTFH]

The unnamed person allegedly mentioned the name of some defendant on trail during a live stream but this name connected to the trail was public knowledge anyways or at least accessible public information. A bit harsh the sentence though, I don't even think it was even a crime, how can mentioning a name in public warrant a custodial sentence ? Also unnamed person was on the road and public pavement during filming and not on the court premises.

It's like being arrested for being there and saying 'turnip' in public.

Not quite, although you've believed the BNP/UKIP/EDL/BF spin.

The trial that was going on was about child sex abuse.
The last time an idiot decided to harass jury members outside the court and name defendants, the defendant's lawyers got the case dropped because of it, and rightly so.
If he was actually interested in justice being served, he wouldn't have turned up and made his live video broadcast, named names, etc.

It was all a publicity stunt for him, but has potentially prevented a fair trial or safety for the jurors.

... not quite saying "turnip"

[DaveB]

The unnamed person allegedly mentioned the name of some defendant on trail during a live stream but this name connected to the trail was public knowledge anyways or at least accessible public information. A bit harsh the sentence though, I don't even think it was even a crime, how can mentioning a name in public warrant a custodial sentence ? Also unnamed person was on the road and public pavement during filming and not on the court premises.

It's like being arrested for being there and saying 'turnip' in public.

No it's not.

It's called contempt of court. As the judge who sentenced him said at the time.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...n-20170522.pdf

This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about the freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty.

It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as "Muslim paedophile rapists". A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting - if reporting indeed is what it is - that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial.

As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action in order to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by "irresponsible and inaccurate reporting". If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.

[Jog On]

When I did jury service last year they made it very explicit not to divulge to do anything that could impact the trial, with examples of people who posted on social media then ended up in jail for it.

I reckon he's done it for exposure and to rally his cause.

[GreenMirror]

I reckon he's done it for exposure and to rally his cause.

Better to keep quiet and let people think you are an idiot than to open your mouth and confirm it. Nick Griffiths on question time....

[LondonManc]

If he's done it during the trial then he's an idiot and deserves what he's got.
If he's done it during sentencing, then the trial is complete and there's going to be a tulipstorm.

The Independent report that the trial is claimed to be ongoing while other sources claim that sentencing has taken place.
Set to run and run.

[Old Greg]

If he's done it during the trial then he's an idiot and deserves what he's got.
If he's done it during sentencing, then the trial is complete and there's going to be a tulipstorm.

The Independent report that the trial is claimed to be ongoing while other sources claim that sentencing has taken place.
Set to run and run.

What are these other sources?

[LondonManc]

What are these other sources?

People arguing the toss on a Facebook thread and posting links. Couldn't be arsed going through them all then and certainly cba doing it again now.
Like I said, IF he's done it during the trial, he's a pillock and got what he deserved; if the verdicts had already been delivered, then it's a different story. As long as justice is served correctly in all instances, it's not a problem.

[DaveB]

People arguing the toss on a Facebook thread and posting links. Couldn't be arsed going through them all then and certainly cba doing it again now.
Like I said, IF he's done it during the trial, he's a pillock and got what he deserved; if the verdicts had already been delivered, then it's a different story. As long as justice is served correctly in all instances, it's not a problem.

The trial is still ongoing. A quick check of the court lists will tell you that.

Leeds Crown Court Listings, hearings, cases & details

Court 12.

The only people claiming it was over are him and his supporters trying to excuse his actions.

There area total of three related trials, the first of which is over, and is the one connected to his original conviction for contempt. This one that is ongoing, where he repeated his offence, and the third is due to start in September.

[Old Greg]

People arguing the toss on a Facebook thread and posting links. Couldn't be arsed going through them all then and certainly cba doing it again now.
Like I said, IF he's done it during the trial, he's a pillock and got what he deserved; if the verdicts had already been delivered, then it's a different story. As long as justice is served correctly in all instances, it's not a problem.

So no credible sources.