Continuing Discussion
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post and remember to change the default subject header.
553040
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 17 Nov 17 at 03:29
|
Appeal court has overturned one of his multiple convictions from 2014 involving sexual assault on a girl of 7 or 8. Doubt cast on whether event at which offence allegedly occurred ever happened. Court concludes other convictions safe. No retrial sought.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/16/rolf-harris-has-one-indecent-assault-conviction-overturned.
The court's full decision was available earlier today but has since been removed. I'll post sa link if/when it re-appears - suspect it may have needed some editing to prevent jigsaw identification of the original complainant.
|
Cliff sued both BBC and South Yorkshire Police over the publicity surrounding raid on his home. He has won claim against BBC and gets £210k. The Police settled at £400k plus costs but on a quick read of case some of that will have to be paid by BBC.
Summary and full judgement here:
www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sir-cliff-richard-obe-v-bbc/
I think an appeal by BBC is likely and will go to Supreme Court and possibly Strasbourg.
|
Missed edit
On a scan of first few pages of judgement the judge was not impressed with the credibility several of the BBC's witness. Suspect this may give rise to a media s*** storm.
|
He presumably doesn't need the money and tax/licence fee payers don't need to be deprived of it, neither is it likely to teach the BBC or the police a lesson unfortunately.
Shame he couldn't sue the individuals concerned for the damage to his reputation.
|
"neither is it likely to teach the BBC or the police a lesson unfortunately."
Yep - that's what I was thinking......
Police guilty - we pay
BBC guilty - we pay
|
>>I think an appeal by BBC is likely
I think, if I was them, I'd leave well alone.
|
>> I think, if I was them, I'd leave well alone.
If it was just the money I'd agree. The issue for BBC, and rest of media as well, will be around findings on Sir Cliff's right to privacy.
|
>> >> I think, if I was them, I'd leave well alone.
>>
>> If it was just the money I'd agree. The issue for BBC, and rest of
>> media as well, will be around findings on Sir Cliff's right to privacy.
>>
Why should Sir Cliff, or anyone else not have a right to privacy from press and media until charges are brought?
|
His right to privacy stops when he is arrested, not pre warned news hellicopters flying over his house during a raid
|
>> His right to privacy stops when he is arrested, not pre warned news hellicopters flying
>> over his house during a raid
>>
I do not know the legal niceties, I thought you had to be charged within 48 hours or released. In which case surely that time from arrest to charge should also be covered by a right to press and media privacy. If it is not it gives free rein to a 2 day period of spreading rumour and innuendo.
In most of the "big" Yewtree cases charges followed pretty soon after arrest IIRC.
|
>> >> I think, if I was them, I'd leave well alone.
>>
>> If it was just the money I'd agree. The issue for BBC, and rest of
>> media as well, will be around findings on Sir Cliff's right to privacy.
I'm sure the rest of the media is cursing the BBC for screwing up yet again.
The only conceivable argument is that around naming a suspect may encourage other 'victims' to come forward. A dodgy point at best.
The fact that one particular reporter essentially blackmails the Police into releasing further information or they would publish early will fundamentally count against them, I think.
Whatever the final position is, I'd be fairly sure that the media will be more restricted than they were before. Which, whilst not a bad thing, does yet again illustrate the BBC's incompetence and short-sightedness.
|
>> The only conceivable argument is that around naming a suspect may encourage other 'victims' to
>> come forward. A dodgy point at best.
A very dodgy point indeed.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 18 Jul 18 at 20:10
|
>> A very dodgy point indeed.
It was pretty successful with Stewart Hall, Rolf Harris and above all Savile. While there is a risk of bandwagon jumpers and compo seekers (and reviews of Yewtree etc have highlighted this) they've a mountain to climb to seem credible - albeit with one well publicised exception.
|
>> >> A very dodgy point indeed.
>>
>> It was pretty successful with Stewart Hall, Rolf Harris and above all Savile.
>>
From what I remember with these three, some charges came very quickly and once someone has been charged there is a little more justification in wider publicity to find out the scale of the offending although it still is questionable from a justice, innocent until proven guilty, point of view.
|
>> From what I remember with these three, some charges came very quickly and once someone
>> has been charged there is a little more justification in wider publicity to find out
>> the scale of the offending although it still is questionable from a justice, innocent until
>> proven guilty, point of view.
As I said upthread and/or volumes ago anonymous until charged unless a judge authorises naming in interests of justice seems a reasonable compromise.
|
One cannot point to areas where it has 'worked' without regarding areas where it has not and in reality neither are conclusive or persuasive on their own.
In truth, it comes down to when you believe that someone's private details may be openly shared;
- On suspicion of wrong-doing?
- On being charged for wrong-doing?
- On being prosecuted for wrong-doing?
- On being found guilty of wrong-doing?
Seems to me it ought to be "on being charged" unless previous publicity is authorised by a court.
If the police aren't sure enough of themselves and their evidence to charge someone, then they shouldn't be sure enough of themselves to publicise the matter seeking more 'victims' or witnesses, unless they have been able to convince a court to allow it.
In which case publicity at the point it was given in Sir Cliff's case was wrong, whereas in Rolf Harris's it was correct. [I can't remember at what point the Saville affair was publicised, but he was dead anyway]
|
>> Seems to me it ought to be "on being charged" unless previous publicity is authorised
>> by a court.
Seems you and I agree for once.
|
|
Welcome to the Dark Side.
|
>> A very dodgy point indeed.
>>
Especially as the increased use of the practice seems in danger of spawning a whole new "industry" of copycat attention-seekers, misfits and the deranged.
It seems manifestly unfair that they get anonymity whereas people with a reputation to lose seem to be fair game for any dubious media stunt.
|
Jonathan King was being prosecuted over another tranche of allegations about him and boys/young men. Trial and charges abandoned after disclosure failures.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/06/surrey-police-to-hold-review-after-trial-of-dj-jonathan-king-collapses
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 7 Aug 18 at 12:17
|
I am gobsmacked by the quote from the CPS
“While we are satisfied the CPS handled the disclosure process appropriately and robustly in this case, there is an unprecedented focus from police and prosecutors to drive improvements in this area.â€
Is it me does that read as "damn we got caught"
|
Well the judge described it as a debacle and the Police and Crime Commissioner is in full on grovel mode.
Draw your own conclusion.
Would be interesting to read the judge's decision but it's not on either the Judiciary website or Bailii.
|
|
I read it as 'we tried to do our best to make up for the shortcomings of those who are really to blame'
|
Rolf Walks - Bromptonaut
