Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
He’s been arrested in connection with a criminal investigation. If newspaper reporting around that causes “substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment” to a subsequent trial relating specifically to that case, then contempt of court has occurred, even if the man in question hadn’t been charged at the time.
The Act does not specifically ban the naming of him, but as naming him could lead to prejudicial reporting, newspaper editors are unlikely to do so unless there’s a clear public interest in doing so, and they believe they can do it in a very careful and controlled manner that they can robustly defend later on. In the case of a back-bench MP who is under suspicion and has been arrested for questioning but not charged, it’s probably not worth the risk - until the cloak of anonymity allows him to get re-selected by local party members who didn’t know what was going on. The story probably begins to take on a significance that’s worth the risk and effort of careful reporting with regards to the CCA at that point.
|
100% this.
It’s worth noting that no newspaper named Edwards. His wife did.
Although it was widely deduced on social media platforms to the point it was untenable is down to his own error of judgement unless someone believes the BBC, with a complaint, with the prospect of a police investigation, with their own journalists uncovering internal complaints, with a duty of care to all of their own staff should have left him on air. An absolutely preposterous position to hold for the state broadcaster.
It’s very clear that some are being blinded by who it is and their own bias, rather than merits of the reporting of allegations.
Some of this thread will look absolutely atrocious for some upon reflection if the BBCs own internal complaints process sacks him.