Arrest made in Aero property recovery case:

[jlanderson]

Bloody predictive text, I meant small! :-D

Craig, a point of order question, if you will. Are the names of those arrested and charged in criminal cases not released under the Scottish legal system?

Were we reporting this in the U.S. media, the name of the person arrested, his address, the charges ... everything would be a matter of public record and be reported. How do media rules for Scotland differ from the U.S. in reporting both on the arrest in a criminal matter and on the subsequent trial? I know press in the UK has far fewer legal protections from libel, but U.S. media is shielded from libel liability when reporting anything said in court as part of any ongoing judicial matter.

And thanks in advance. As a newspaper editor, I'm just interested in this side of things.

Have a good weekend.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I heard he was trying to miraculously change steer into horsehide in his attic. [huh]

 

[Fanch]

I came into this late and just saw the thread. Jlanderson does bring forth some interesting points though, and seems that the US and Scottish judicial protocol is markedly different. Anyhow, thanks Craig for letting us know of this latest development.

 

[winterland1]

No wonder the "it never happened" shills have gone undercover.

What never happened? I must have missed out on where this was talked about before.

 

[ButteMT61]

What never happened? I must have missed out on where this was talked about before.

Yeah, a lot. Best to leave it go the legal route and then we can discuss the outcome. Speculation isn't that great and unfair.
Still believe in "innocent until..." Even if the evidence locker overfloweth.

 

[W4ASZ]

I would like to see the perpetrators, if these they be, given a good hiding.

 

[Dumpster Diver]

In response to Hoosierdaddy; Full leather alchemist!

 

[Sloan1874]

Jlanderson, there are a few reasons under Scots law for non-identification: firstly, the case could be abandoned between the arrest and it coming to trial. Secondly, it's to prevent potential jurors being influenced by any details ahead of any case.
As such, tv cameras still have very limited access to courts in the UK, though this is changing, and reporters have to rely on shorthand as tape recorders are not allowed.
Newspapers have qualified privilege when reporting on court cases, in as much as long as our coverage is a fair and accurate representation of what is said, we're protected from legal action over libels made by others. Hope that helps.

 

[Sloan1874]

Just for completedness' sake:

http://m.scotsman.com/news/scotland...after-aero-leather-theft-worth-144k-1-3214953

 

[Jeff M]

Jlanderson, there are a few reasons under Scots law for non-identification: firstly, the case could be abandoned between the arrest and it coming to trial. Secondly, it's to prevent potential jurors being influenced by any details ahead of any case.
As such, tv cameras still have very limited access to courts in the UK, though this is changing, and reporters have to rely on shorthand as tape recorders are not allowed.
Newspapers have qualified privilege when reporting on court cases, in as much as long as our coverage is a fair and accurate representation of what is said, we're protected from legal action over libels made by others. Hope that helps.

Much more civilized than the "OJ Simpson" route we take here in the US.
Also, isn't there a verdict of "Not found guilty" available under Scottish law...ie, we couldn't find the person guilty, but we aren't finding them innocent either? Love that.

 

[Capesofwrath]

I was under the impression that naming arrested people was not an offence under UK law but simply left the newspaper at risk of litigation from the person named. However after the person is charged there is no risk of libel and it's normal to name that person but not go into any other detail about the case. Publishing possibly pejorative details about the lifestyle or history of a person arrested or charged is an offence. For instance in a recent case where the landlord of a murdered woman was arrested and then monstered by the tabloids, a couple of papers were prosecuted for contempt because the coverage could have swayed a jury and affected his right to a free trial. In that case he was never charged anyway, and someone else was tried and convicted while he set himself up for life on the proceeds of his libel actions against the newspapers.

So is the law in Scotland different is this regard? There are many differences in Scottish law to the law elsewhere in the UK but I thought the law about sub judice and contempt of court were the same. So if this man has been charged why can't he be named?

 

[Sloan1874]

I think we're all relieved that police investigations have progressed to the point of an arrest and charges, with the usual legal presumptions. Actually, v few people are named at the point of arrest in both England and Scotland. Indeed the Home Secretary this year made it clear to forces that unless there are v good public interest reasons for naming suspects arrested, it shouldn't happen. Hope that helps!

 

[wdw]

If I'm not mistaken, the Scottish Courts site lists cases up to 5 days in advance, so that might be the first time there's official confirmation. Complete mystery until then.

 

[Capesofwrath]

I think we're all relieved that police investigations have progressed to the point of an arrest and charges, with the usual legal presumptions. Actually, v few people are named at the point of arrest in both England and Scotland. Indeed the Home Secretary this year made it clear to forces that unless there are v good public interest reasons for naming suspects arrested, it shouldn't happen. Hope that helps!

Yes I know. But my main point is that they are named after being charged. So has this mystery man been charged or not? If so why can't you name him? Or is the law in that regard different in Scotland?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yes, you're thinking of "not proven". It's useful but a bit of a cop-out really, allowing the jury to shirk the responsibility of making a decision. Not Proven is, however, no different from "Not Guilty". It is an acquittal. My real problem with it is in public perception. "Not Proven" allows the jury to acquit but allow some of the shit to stick, leading to ongoing problems for the acquitted party. The jury almost saying "tut tut, we know you did something, we just can't prove it", which is obviously not the role of the jury. Banged to rights, guvner!

Also, isn't there a verdict of "Not found guilty" available under Scottish law...ie, we couldn't find the person guilty, but we aren't finding them innocent either? Love that.

 

[wdw]

Yes, you're thinking of "not proven".

I was on a "Not Proven" jury once. Despite the accused admitting guilt, the blatant dislike of some jury members for the victim meant that they'd never have committed the guy. Not Proven was a total cop-out, but sadly my experience of jury service wasn't anything like Twelve Angry Men.

 

[Otter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven#Modern_usage

For anyone who wants the boring detail!

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...fixture-of-scots-law-set-for-review-1-2973603

 

[jlanderson]

Jlanderson, there are a few reasons under Scots law for non-identification: firstly, the case could be abandoned between the arrest and it coming to trial. Secondly, it's to prevent potential jurors being influenced by any details ahead of any case.
As such, tv cameras still have very limited access to courts in the UK, though this is changing, and reporters have to rely on shorthand as tape recorders are not allowed.
Newspapers have qualified privilege when reporting on court cases, in as much as long as our coverage is a fair and accurate representation of what is said, we're protected from legal action over libels made by others. Hope that helps.

Thank you, Craig. Very interesting about the differences between British and American media and the reporting of criminal matters.

 

[Jeff M]

Yes, you're thinking of "not proven". It's useful but a bit of a cop-out really, allowing the jury to shirk the responsibility of making a decision. Not Proven is, however, no different from "Not Guilty". It is an acquittal. My real problem with it is in public perception. "Not Proven" allows the jury to acquit but allow some of the shit to stick, leading to ongoing problems for the acquitted party. The jury almost saying "tut tut, we know you did something, we just can't prove it", which is obviously not the role of the jury. Banged to rights, guvner!

That's it. Couldn't remember it.

 

[Jeff M]

I was on a "Not Proven" jury once. Despite the accused admitting guilt, the blatant dislike of some jury members for the victim meant that they'd never have committed the guy. Not Proven was a total cop-out, but sadly my experience of jury service wasn't anything like Twelve Angry Men.

Reminds me of a story I read about the evolution/history of trial by jury in the UK.
Way back several hundred years ago a man was put on trial for stealing sheep from his neighbor. The jury returned a verdict of innocent.
The judge was not pleased with this, and told them to go back and try again.
The jury subsequently returned with the verdict of not guilty as long as the accused returned the sheep.
The judge was still not pleased with the verdict, and told the jury to go back and come up with a different verdict.
The jury deliberated for a short time, and returned with the verdict not guilty...and the accused could keep the sheep.