Naming "accused" or "charged" people & innocent until proven guilty

Dionysus

First time posting in this forum so I hope it's the right one.

Listening to the radio this evening and a named 19-year-old was "charged" with a child's murder. For many years now I've wondered what the motivation is for Irish law allowing this, that is if we genuinely believe in a legal system based upon innocent until proven guilty.

More particularly, in the real world we all know that naming somebody before he has been found guilty adds to his guilt in the view of very many in Irish society: "no smoke without fire" and all that. That is the reality.

I find this policy of publicly naming accused to be most repulsive when it comes to naming people accused of child abuse. No matter if the person is found innocent, mud sticks and there will always be a deep suspicion simply because an accused person was named. It is a huge injustice for an innocent man to have to bear this.

Does anybody know the ethical reason why Irish law continues to allow accused to be named before being convicted? I can see the practical reason of keeping the media happy and boosting a garda investigator's career. But in terms of justice and ethics how does Irish law justify this policy? Are there any plans to reform it?

Thanks.

MagicSean

If you dont reveal their identity you would have to close courts to the public completely.

Max Power1

He is not named as guilty, just as "accused", or "charged". Both of which are facts - not hearsay.

As they are not naming him as guilty, it is not illegal.

Bosco boy

People who are charged are brought before the courts, the courts are open to the public for openness and transparency, the media have acess as a result and only in cases of juveniles or exceptional cases the media are prohibited from reporting, it's important that justice is also seen to be done, I think the bigger issue is the media management of the story sourrounding the case, I don't think secrecy is the way to go. People who are charged are innocent untill proven guilty. If you were in many other countries you can be held as guilty untill proven innocent, adversarial v's inquisitorial system.

fergpie

I find this policy of publicly naming accused to be most repulsive when it comes to naming people accused of child abuse

People accused of sexual offences whether against adults or children and other offences against minors are not named unless the victim agrees to wave their anonymity. This is to protect the identity of the victim.

dats_right

The Constitution provides that justice shall be administered in public in all courts in Ireland, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law. Court sittings in the vast majority of cases are therefore open to the public, with exceptions including those cases concerning family law and particular sexual offences.

Part of administering justice in public includes the identification of accused, and the media are entitled to povide honest and accurate reports of what takes place in our Courts.

Jev/N

Art 34.1 Bunreacht na hEireann:

Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public.

The accused will be tried in public so anyone could go in and find out who they are, thus there is no legitimate reason, save for specific instances, why the person should be protected.

There are very few circumstances where cases won't be heard due to media publicity; there is a high level of confidence in the trial judge at directing the jury in a correct manner.

edit: sorry, didn't see the post above mine!

Victor

Of course, while it is cold comfort for the accused, at least it stops speculation.

amen

not really on topic but I have often wondered about

with exceptions including those cases concerning family law

does this mean that I as a member of the public cannot attend the court ?

if so how come some reporters seem to know the details of the cases but they don't report all of the details due to the incamera rule? (Waters Irish Times)

If journalists are allowed but don't report why are they allowed and not the general public?

McCrack

Bona fide members of the press are allowed attend. They just can't identify the parties in the media.

amen

do you know under what ground the press are treated more favourably then the general public

law86

It facilitates informing the public of the facts and findings of sensitive cases; however the press are under a legal duty not to name the parties. Stops salacious cases with often vulnerable injured parties becoming circuses for the morbidly fascinated.

MagicSean

They have a reason for being there and are prohibited from revealing any details of the case when reporting on it. A random member of the public has no reason to be there.