DLT Charged
-
cockneygeezer2009
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: DLT Charged
The matter is sub judice so you four are breaking the law by discussing it. Although I doubt many of the eventual jury read this forum, the judge is probably an avid follower.
Re: DLT Charged
Essex Lad wrote:
> The matter is sub judice so you four are breaking the law by
> discussing it.
That's a new one. When was that law invented?
> The matter is sub judice so you four are breaking the law by
> discussing it.
That's a new one. When was that law invented?
UK Babe Channels - <http://www.babechannels.co.uk>
Re: DLT Charged
JamesW wrote:
> That's a new one. When was that law invented?
>
1981 Contempt of Court Act, although it existed before that. Once the case is sub judice (under judgement) the publication of material that could affect the case is barred.
> That's a new one. When was that law invented?
>
1981 Contempt of Court Act, although it existed before that. Once the case is sub judice (under judgement) the publication of material that could affect the case is barred.
We have need of you again, great king.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Peter/James W
There is an important limitation on the impact of the strict liability rule in said act:
?It applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
Now as wonderful and informed as the comments made on this forum are, I think those posters who commented on DLT can safely rest in their beds.
Just as Arfur down the pub stating "That DLT has been caught bang to rights" can similarly, concentrate on his next pint.
?It applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
Now as wonderful and informed as the comments made on this forum are, I think those posters who commented on DLT can safely rest in their beds.
Just as Arfur down the pub stating "That DLT has been caught bang to rights" can similarly, concentrate on his next pint.
Re: Peter/James W
That's in essence what I said. Although an internet site is not quite the same as Arthur down the pub.
James
JamesW wrote:
> Essex Lad wrote:
>
> > The matter is sub judice so you four are breaking the law by
> > discussing it.
>
>
> That's a new one. When was that law invented?
>
Apart from you trying (and failing) to be a smartarse ? leave it to the professionals like Johnson ? did you never wonder why the media never report on cases after someone has been charged apart from their appearances at court hearings? There is next to no coverage of say Max Clifford, Rebekah Brooks et al since they were charged. Did you never wonder why columnists never opine on someone's guilt or otherwise?
"In England and Wales it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.
"In English law, the term was correctly used to describe material which would prejudice court proceedings by publication before 1981. Sub judice is now irrelevant to journalists because of the introduction of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Under Section 2 of the Act, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there's an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons."
> Essex Lad wrote:
>
> > The matter is sub judice so you four are breaking the law by
> > discussing it.
>
>
> That's a new one. When was that law invented?
>
Apart from you trying (and failing) to be a smartarse ? leave it to the professionals like Johnson ? did you never wonder why the media never report on cases after someone has been charged apart from their appearances at court hearings? There is next to no coverage of say Max Clifford, Rebekah Brooks et al since they were charged. Did you never wonder why columnists never opine on someone's guilt or otherwise?
"In England and Wales it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.
"In English law, the term was correctly used to describe material which would prejudice court proceedings by publication before 1981. Sub judice is now irrelevant to journalists because of the introduction of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Under Section 2 of the Act, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there's an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons."