nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Publication of arrest?

Corruptable

I've noticed in general that it seems that the details of a person who has been arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence only seems to be published after they are officially charged with the offence.

Is this the case or is it ever possible for the media to publish the name(s) of an arrested person prior to charging?

I've tried using Media Law in Ireland (Carolan) and Journalists and the Law (Murphy and McGuinness) and and while excellent on court reporting do not contain information on pre-trial issues such as this.

In the UK, there seems to be ACPO guidelines which help the media clarify and attracting liability or prejudicing proceedings: http://www.inbrief.co.uk/media-law/media-identification-of-suspects.htm

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

coylemj

Corruptable wrote: »

I've noticed in general that it seems that the details of a person who has been arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence only seems to be published after they are officially charged with the offence.

Is this the case or is it ever possible for the media to publish the name(s) of an arrested person prior to charging?

The problem for the media would be attribution. Say Joe Bloggs is arrested for shoplifting and at the same time the Gardai are investigating a serious crime such as murder. A journalist is told in confidence by a cop that Joe Bloggs has been arrested on suspicion of murder so his newspaper prints this as a fact.

Even if it was true, nobody in the Gardai would be authorised to verify it so the paper would have no defence in a case of defamation, under NUJ rules they wouldn't be able to 'out' the cop who provided false information and even if they could, they'd get very little public sympathy for naming someone in the wrong. That's probably why they don't print the names of people while they are 'helping the Gardai with their inquiries'.

blatantrereg

If you might be arrested then you should do as little as possible to help the guards with their inquiries really

Peregrinus

There's two issues. One is defamation; if I print that Corruptable is to be charged with an offence , the innuendo is that he is guilty of the offence. If, in the event, he is never charged, I may have some difficult in justifying the innnuendo if he sues for defamation

The second, and probably bigger issue, is the danger of prejudicing a trial. If I print that Corruptable is to be charged with murder and, in the event, he is charged with some different and lesser offence, he will argue that he cannot get a fair trial because irresponsible newspaper coverage has hopeless prejudiced potential jurors against him. If the trial has to be aborted because of this Corruptable walks free of all charges, and the judge goes through the newspaper editor and publisher for a short cut.

krd

coylemj wrote: »

The problem for the media would be attribution. Say Joe Bloggs is arrested for shoplifting and at the same time the Gardai are investigating a serious crime such as murder. A journalist is told in confidence by a cop that Joe Bloggs has been arrested on suspicion of murder so his newspaper prints this as a fact.

The traditional Irish media response is usually: "Gardai have a man helping them with their inquiries"

Which always sounds great. Like the Gardai have been stumped - and have needed to recruit a member of the public to help them out - bring some fresh thinking to the investigation. And they're all at some station somewhere, chain smoking cigarettes and working late into the night to crack the case.

The whole sub judice in reporting thing is interesting. I can think of one very high profile Irish case - where I've heard the Garda believe they have it down to two suspects. But that's never been in the media - and neither has the names of the suspects. Or, why they are suspects.

coylemj

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's two issues. One is defamation; if I print that Corruptable is to be charged with an offence , the innuendo is that he is guilty of the offence. If, in the event, he is never charged, I may have some difficult in justifying the innnuendo if he sues for defamation

It would be a ludicrous gamble for a newspaper editor to predict that Corruptable was to be charged with any specific offence before he actually was. Once a person is charged with an offence, that can be reported as a fact since there will be documentary evidence in court records to back it up as a a fact but up to that point it would be a brave editor who printed the suggestion that such a charge was to be laid against a named individual.

In law there is no 'innuendo' that someone is guilty of an offence just because he is charged with that offence. If there was, everyone who was found not guilty in a criminal trial would be able to sue every newspaper who reported the fact that they had been charged with that offence. It's not just the accused who can fall back on the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.

Carawaystick

How would the evidence of a non-garda seeing someone arrested hold up?

i.e. a neighbour or even a journalist?

I'm sure Ive heard reports of people being acquitted and re-arrested on the doorsteps of the courthouse, but not necessarily charged before the news report

Peregrinus

coylemj wrote: »

In law there is no 'innuendo' that someone is guilty of an offence just because he is charged with that offence.

No. But if you print that somebody is going to be charged with an offence, there's certainly an innuendo there.

coylemj

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. But if you print that somebody is going to be charged with an offence, there's certainly an innuendo there.

You need go read my post again. What I said is that if someone has been charged with an offence, there is no problem in reporting that because it's a fact whereas to report that someone was about to be charged with an offence would be a completely different matter.

Peregrinus

coylemj wrote: »

You need go read my post again. What I said is that if someone has been charged with an offence, there is no problem in reporting that because it's a fact whereas to report that someone was about to be charged with an offence would be a completely different matter.

Sorry. My careless reading. We are in agreement; I was just too stupid to see it.

Corruptable

Excellent responses, thanks lads. Helped get my head around it now, in relation to defamation and the newspaper being out in the cold without any real defence or justification.

[Deleted User]

What about the situation that seems to happen in England a lot where the police brief the press that they are going to arrest somebody high profile at his house at 6am and the press is there to photograph and report it? Could that happen here? Often they seem to be quietly released afterwards without charge but the image sticks...

Peregrinus

The Guards like to be on good terms with the press, and there is a generally friendly and co-operative relationship between them. Much of the minor reporting that appears in your morning paper about public order incident, crimes, etc that happened the day before is fed to the journalists by guards. Whenever, after a significant crime has been solved, there is a newspaper report detailing the investigation and its success, that too will be heavily based on information suppled by guards. In return, the report will make sure you know all about the hard work and good judgment of the investigating officers that led to the solution of the crime. Conversely, when there are high-profile crimes that aren’t being solved, you won’t see too many articles decrying police inefficiency or incompetence. So, on the whole, there’s a pretty close relationship there.

But, having said that, the staged arrest with media invites is not common in Ireland. I suspect there are a few reasons for this.

First, law enforcement is less politicised in Ireland than in many other countries. (I’m thinking more of the US than the UK when I say this.)

Secondly, Irish society being what it is, it’s hard to keep a secret. The more people who know in advance about a particular arrest operation, the more likely the intended subject of the operation will get wind of it. That would be very embarrassing.

Thirdly, the Irish courts have always taken a very dim view of avoidable pre-trial publicity. No interest of justice is served by having an arrest take place in the glare of media scrutiny, and there’s a distinct possibility of creating a prejudicial impression in the minds of potential jurors. If there’s one thing the guards do not want, it’s to see a criminal trial aborted.

I’m not saying that such things never happen. I recall it must be ten years ago or more the guards raided the offices of Hanahoes Solicitors in Parliament Street - Hanahoes were acting for John Gilligan, who at the time was under investigation by the CAB. A raid on solicitor’s offices is almost unheard of; any evidence gathered in such a raid would usually be inadmissible in court proceedings. The guards’ claim was that they were looking for information to which they were entitled in any event, but the feared that if they asked for it in the usual way Gilligan would take the opportunity to burn down his solicitor’s office, and so destroy the information sought.

This was not a particularly plausible argument, and it was undermined by the fact that, by Amazing Coincidence, when the guards turned up for the raid there was a slew of press photographers and print journalists hanging around in the street outside. The whole thing was the front-page news the next day, complete with photographs. It subsequently transpired that the journalists had received a series of telephone tip-offs about the raid within half-an-hour of the timing of the raid having been decided at a garda conference in Harcourt Street. It was difficult to avoid the conclusion that the entire business had been staged at least partly to foster a media impression that the authorities were being all tough and vigorous and butch.

Hanahoes sued. The court was satisfied on the evidence that the leaks to the media came from the guards, and that they were intended to embarrass and distress Hanahoes, and that this was “an outrageous interference with their privacy and their constitutional rights”. Damages were awarded to Hanahoes against the State. It was suggested that the media leaks rendered invalid the otherwise valid search warrant which was the basis for the raid; the court didn’t accept that “in the circumstances of this case” but left open the possibility that in different circumstances that might be the result.

It’s not quite in point, since Hanahoes were not accused or suspected of any wrongdoing and were not arrested. Nevertheless there’s an obvious parallel between creating a media circus out of the execution of a search warrant, and creating a media circus out of an arrest, and the case lays down a clear marker for how the courts might react to this. Much and all as the guards like good press, they like getting successful convictions even more, so this probably discourages them from seeking publicity for arrests.