Jump to content


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 891
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Twenty years ago when the schools became devolved and management of the school budgets lay with the head teachers is when things began to change. The money was and is in exam enrolment.  When the

That was a big McSteak.

Sigh. Why is it that we have to wait for a major incident (jail, controversy on the world wide stage) before someone realises that perhaps expecting workers to come from the U.K. to a different j

Posted Images

Re the picture, if the American depression of the 30's, high forehead and protruding lower jaw dietary deformities were the deciding factor, there would be more prisoners that free citizens in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Kopek said:

What is the difference between sub judice and anonymity until guilty?

The prosecution case in both must be settled before it becomes public?

Sub judice means the case is under judicial review, (literal translation "under justice")  that is all and applies to all proceedings.  The rules around a matter being sub judice are intended to prevent prejudice in the decision, most usually of a jury, so that the facts of the case stand on their own merits without the influence of history, publicity or opinion.  If prejudice is found it can cause a mistrial.   But the name of the defendant is not withheld, nor is factual reporting of the proceedings prevented. 

Anonymity prevents the identification of the defendant, unless found guilty.  The purpose is to avoid "no smoke without fire" type allegations if the defendant is found not guilty. 

Two completely different things but could operate at the same time - during a hearing the matter is sub judice so press comment is limited to factual reporting, not dishing the dirt,  but if anonymity is ordered the name or other way of identifying the defendant cannot be released. There may be other limitations on public and press access. 

John may give a more legally accurate explanation.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gladys said:

John may give a more legally accurate explanation.  

I,m sure he will Gladys but it will be based on 'old' law/interpretation', not accounting for modern Facebook/MF comment.

The argument is that, on one hand the defendant should be named to allow further accusations to be brought forward and on the other hand to dis-allow further comment as to not prejudice the current trial! That is contrary?

Surely all trials should be 'sub judice' until the verdict or all should allow outside influence to allow for further charges, new information to the furtherence of that trial?

This, of course, comes from the proposed sexual offences law proposals with regard to the defendants rights versus the ability to identify other accusations. ( I'm ambivalent ).

It's a case of one rule for one situation being contrary to the other situation?

..............and, of course, mf v. facebook?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...