A teacher who ran away to France with a besotted 15 year-old pupil is currently on trial for child abduction, and his fate will now be in the hands of a jury. The press are meticulously avoiding any mention of the girl's name, as they must because there is almost certainly a court order against her being identified. Unfortunately the order is pointless because her name and much more was all over the press before they were run to ground in France and the teacher was charged. A Google search against his name will turn up the girl's in a trice.
It is standard procedure in any case involving a child to make a CYPA order prohibiting the publication of anything that might serve to identify the young person involved, but that's a fat lot of good if the press have been running the story for days in loving detail. The law about identifying children is a mess, as protection from publicity only kicks in once the case goes live. I cannot think of any remotely practical way of getting round this problem.
"I cannot think of any remotely practical way of getting round this problem."
ReplyDeleteIs it really a PROBLEM ? General public have forgotten her name. Only someone very keen will google for the detail and they are prevented from sharing that information with the public.
Surely the jury are going to hear her name every day? The prohibition is to prevent the press and other media outlets publishing stories that might sway the jury. I imagine most of what was said at the time about their relationship will be rehearsed in lurid detail in the pages of our daily papers as the trial progresses and the evidence is presented, but it will be seived through the factual filter of the criminal justice process, i.e. hopefully shorn of some of the more irresponsible commentary and speculation that abounded at the time of their flight to France.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just the name. It's all the surrounding detail, as mentioned by Bystander. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, untainted by what they may have seen in the press or on television. Even those charged with murdering Lee Rigby are so entitled. Sadly, like Bystander, I can see no way round it either. Trial by the press, long before it ever gets to court, is now very definitely here, and probably here to stay.
ReplyDeleteDepending how heavy the lifting 'practical way around' is doing, I'll mention that one of the things you want to do in a kidnapping case is get the identity of the abducted and abductee out rapidly and massively, to ease in their identification - especially in cases where Stockholm Syndrome may be an issue and the abductee can't necessarily be counted upon to aid in their own rescue.
ReplyDeleteIf it were just publishing briefly details it wouldn't be such a problem. What is the problem is the lurid , repeated and often inaccurate reporting that just goes on, and on, and on every 15 minutes on the tabloid news. The truth is in 99% of cases no one gives a toss and has the slightest interest. In the odd case it does the press make such a botch that it does ruin people- therefore even if ineffective in some respects the restrictions are justified
ReplyDeleteSurely in this case the over-riding need was to locate and bring home the child, which would not have happened if she had not been identified and pictured. I, personally have forgotten her name, and cannot see that it matters greatly in the overall scheme of things.
ReplyDeleteThe prohibition on naming her now has nothing to do with fairness of the trial, and everything to do with shielding a child from public intrusion.
It was a necessity to release both their names bearing in mind the situation when she disappeared. Her safety was uppermost at all times and the police will know they will sensationalize the story but if anything that will grab more attention which was what the police would have wanted at the time and ultimately in this case and others leads to their whereabouts.
ReplyDeleteThe Judge will be well versed in this case and will no doubt ask potential jurors if they are familiar with the case and if so if anything will prevent them from makeing a just decision.
Works well in my opinion
Modern technology has made it difficult or even impossible to police or enforce some laws.
ReplyDeleteI assume that a CYPA Order has been made so woe betide any reporter unwise enough to name the schoolgirl in question. However, by following Bystander's hints, anybody can obtained her identity with a couple of clicks.
The cat is already out of the bag. How can an Order prevent publication of information that is already in the public domain?
What is already in the domain is supposition by the press. What the evidence is is a different matter.
DeleteHow can you be sure you're not breaching the order by providing simple instructions for finding the name?
ReplyDeleteIf I for example published her name backwards or ROT13'd I doubt I would have much of an leg to stand on.
(And yes, I agree it's ridiculous!)
Without breaking any rules, I can say we thought long and hard about the S39 order in the face of some very Good argument from the Associated Press. The principle reason was to keep the name out of the press, because as stated the name is being forgotten. I know the original order was varied by a DJ but only slightly. The only other upshot was my name got flashed round the world.
ReplyDelete^ controversial
DeleteIn most cases you could just prevent the naming of the victim, but obviously where you are looking for her that isn't wise. I think this way works fairly well, what she needs is for this not to spring to mind when she meets people, that's all.
ReplyDeleteThis order is about protecting the young person, not ensuring a fair trial for the defendant. If the UK press published anything that prevented a fair trial, they could have been dealt with whether or not there was an order.
Childrens Act 1989 s.1, requires courts to have the welfare of the child as paramount. Locating (suspected or actually) abducted children obviously requires and is helped by their identification to the public. It would be perverse for a court to block that publication during such an investigation.
ReplyDeleteIt is the very fact that the media cannot be relied upon to treat information that they are given, judiciously and responsibly, which makes it imperative that the Government enacts its own Royal Charter and not the Press Barons' Royal Charter Lite.
ReplyDeleteIt is the very fact the Government cannot be relied upon to act as controller, directly or indirectly, of what we can know which makes it imperative that neither of these so-called Royal Charters are ever put in place.
DeleteOr even 'is'. But (for once!) I think I agree with Andrew. Quite worrying.
DeleteKate Caveat
There's an additional problem here She has a very unusual name, very likely shared with nobody else in the UK. Privacy from now on will be difficult.
ReplyDeleteI see that another case has been reported today. The media is still reporting the 14 year old's name, but probably not for much longer.
These gagging laws are never perfect. There was recently a highish-profile rape case, obviously no names here, in which the victim (a word I only use where there has been a conviction) was related to a well-known family in a part of Ireland which I will not specify. That made her identity juicy news there and she was named in the local press.
ReplyDeleteNow, if you know where to look, there are shops and news-stands in the cities with big Irish populations which sell a huge range of local Irish newspapers, and of course the issue with her name was on sale. And there is nobody whose job description includes leafing through foreign newspapers "just in case" and nor should there be. So I doubt if anybody was even technically guilty of any offence.
Any further upset caused to the young woman was, I fear, just too bad.
Err... Aren't we all forgetting that the reason that her name was out in the papers was because people were trying to find her for her own safety? If they hadn't have gone to France, necessitating a Europe-wide manhunt to safeguard a girl who (for all we knew at the time) could have been in very real danger, her name would never have been reported.
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that we all know her name (I, at least, remember it from the news articles when she was still missing), I still support suppressing its publication now. She doesn't need her name and face all over the national press again.
ReplyDeleteAnyone know why he's only being charged with abduction and not sexual activity with a child?
"Anyone know why he's only being charged with abduction and not sexual activity with a child?"
ReplyDeleteThe maximum sentence for child abduction is, I believe, more severe, plus the burden of proof is perhaps less onerous. The mere fact that he is alleged to have taken a minor out of the UK seems to be a clear breach of the Child Abduction Act 1984, although I suspect that that act was aimed dealing with the actions of estranged parents rather than a case like this.
The under age sex aspect could have been seen as a bit of a legal minefield for the jury by the CPS, given that the girl was over the age where she could have been assumed to have made an informed decision, even if the act itself was unlawful and that she appears to have been a willing participant, or perhaps was even the instigator (based on the evidence she herself has given so far in this case).
If I have understood correctly, it is thought likely that he may have pleaded guilty to one or more under-age sex offences, but this will not have been reported or disclosed so as not to sway the jury, but will be addressed at the sentencing stage.
DeleteWhat will happen to the CYPA order if Maddy McCann's abductor were ever to face a trial?
ReplyDeletePlease God that she is alive and that she and her abductor are found. The issue of a CYPA order would be a minuscule one against the joy of her return.
DeleteWhat a waste of money!
ReplyDeleteSo, he's been found guilty, which given the specific wording of the 1984 Child Abduction Act was probably to be expected.
ReplyDeleteI expect the sentence, whatever it is, when handed down tomorrow, will be denounced by the Daily Wail et al as being too lenient, given that he has been branded as a paedophile by the CPS.
Is this stupid and irresponsible young teacher REALLY a paedophile?
It seems to me that the young girl in this case shares a significant burden of responsibility. I know that she was, legally, under the age of consent, and hence still a minor, but she was over the age of criminal responsibility and over the age of informed consent, so has to have been considered to be aware of the consequences of her own actions. By her own admission she was the instigator of this relationship, she was the willing partner, she was the one who applied emotional pressure to the teacher to run away to France, yet now she has to carry the additional burden of seeing the person she seemingly has a strong emotional attachment to go to prison, partly on her behalf.
Here's the judge's speech in full:-
ReplyDeletehttp://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sentencing-remarks-hhj-lawson-qc-r-v-forrest.pdf
The sentencing remarks are a little vague on whether the alleged offences all relate to the same "relationship". Assuming that it is so, whilst I am sure sentencing guidelines were followed etc. I believe that the harshness of the sentencing was excessive.
ReplyDeleteI'm also surprised that he voluntarily came back; I was under the impression that the UK would only be able to charge him with offences which are valid in both countries, or are actually on the EAW, and that surely would have significantly decreased the number and level of charges.