Did Dr Vincent Tabak's Conviction happen in May/July 2011?

[[...]]

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales:

In these proceedings Her Majesty’s Attorney-General contends that the first defendant, the publisher of the Daily Mirror newspaper, and the second defendant, the publisher of The Sun newspaper, should be committed, or otherwise dealt with for contempt of court.  The contempt is said to arise from articles published in the issues of the Daily Mirror dated 31st December 2010 and 1st January 2011 and in the Sun on 1st January 2011 in breach of the strict liability rule as defined in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (the Act).

This doesn't make sense...

Comment
The findings of strict liability contempt under issue (2) were novel. The Court acknowledged that it was “unusual” for a contempt case to be based on impediment and that the A-G’s argument that witnesses would be deterred from assisting the defence had not previously been subjected to any analysis in the authorities.

It was not entirely clear from the terms of the judgment whether, in respect of either or both newspapers, the Court also found contempt proved under issue (1) above. Both MGN Ltd and News Group Ltd, who have both made applications to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal, have based their appeals on the assumption that the sole or principal finding against them was under issue (2).

How can it be contempt of court??

Strict liability contempt..

Strict Liability Contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981

The strict liability rule may render the publication a contempt regardless of any intent to interfere with the course of justice in the proceedings. Refer to The Law, earlier in this guidance, applies:

to publications (including broadcasts , websites and other online or text-based communication) addressed to the public at large or any section of the public;
which create a substantial risk that the course of public justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. Risk is judged at the time of publication. The longer the gap between publication and the trial ('the fade factor'), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be;
and only applies to legal proceedings that are "active" at the time of the publication.
"Active" is defined in Schedule 1 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and proceedings are active if a summons has been issued or a defendant arrested without warrant. Where a warrant has been issued, proceedings cease to be active once twelve months' have elapsed without the suspect's arrest, and where there has been an arrest when the suspect is released without charge otherwise than on bail.

Proceedings also cease to be active where they conclude by, inter alia, acquittal/sentence, any other order bringing proceedings to an end, or by discontinuance/operation of law.

Note: Common law contempt may be committed where proceedings are pending or imminent (albeit not necessarily active for the purposes of the 1981 Act), and where there is actual intent to interfere with the administration of justice in those proceedings.

We need it to be active, for it to be active someone needs to be arrested etc.. etc...

The issue with the media of the time should have been that of libel and not a contempt of court issue...
Especially as the proceedings take place some 3 months after CJ is released from bail... Therefore he has NO link to the case, he as the Attorney General has stated a completely innocent man...
Therefore how can whatever was printed at the time of his arrest be strict liability contempt ? He is not the defendant.... He was never going to be the defendant... he was exonerated... How he was exonerated is another matter for discussion...

Provided the proceedings are “active” (and in this case it is not in dispute that at the date of each publication the proceedings against Mr Jefferies were indeed “active”) section 2(2) applies.  This provides:
“The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.”

The Strict Liability Rule...  Doesn't make sense in this case... As it didn't affect the outcome of a case that hadn't even reached trial in July 2011 and didn't apply to CJ as he was exonerated.. How did they manage to apply it to the papers some months later??

Libelous yes... But not "The Strict Liability Rule..." No contempt of court took place... No hinderance to the trial took place... CJ wasn't even called as a witness...

So how did they apply "The Strict Liability Rule"?? It doesn't make sense to me ...

inter alia, acquittal/sentence

Amongst other things CJ was exonerated in this case... So The papers didn't interfere with a Defendant...  What had the papers published that covered 'The Strict Liability Rule"??  It cannot be anything to do with the Joanna Yeates case ...(imo) Because CJ was found Innocent of that Crime..

Two newspapers were in contempt of court when they published articles about the arrest of a man over the killing of Joanna Yeates, the Attorney General claimed yesterday.

How could they be in contempt of court????

The Court acknowledged that it was “unusual” for a contempt case to be based on impediment The Court acknowledged that it was “unusual” for a contempt case to be based on impediment

How could publishing about CJ have been an impediment to the case ?? How could that prejudice the case.. As at The time of The Attorney General's judgement, CJ was...

(A): Not a suspect
(B): Deemed completely Innocent/exonerated.

I find it extremely frustrating that No-one will talk about this case... I cannot understand why Journalists whom are not that daft, refuse to make comment on obvious protocol lapses in this case.... I have pointed out many discrepencies with Dr Vincent Tabak's trial...

And... The only reason I believe that they do not say anything about the obvious.. Is that For the purposes of the Act proceedings against ??? were active.

Is there still active proceedings in regard to this case?? Not against CJ... But I am asking if the reason that no-one will say anything in relation to The Joanna Yeates case and Dr Vincent Tabak...

"Is For the purposes of the Act proceedings against someone still active."????

I'm bemused... As I keep saying nothing makes sense... If It was not "Active" then why The Contempt of court ruling?? He was no longer on bail... he was described as totally Innocent ...Yet they found the papers to be in contempt of Court?? How was that possible when it had no impact on The Trial... They hadn't even applied the "fade factor"

The longer the gap between publication and the trial ('the fade factor'), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be;

Not only that CJ was never going to trial on this issue!!

Just because "the Attorney General" has said that it is Subjudice doesn't make it so...(imo)... It can only be prejudicial.. If the person named in such article, is the actual Defendant in this trial.... Otherwise, it is libel... plain and simple...(imo)

The legal test

In short, once legal proceedings become "active", it is a criminal offence for media organisations to broadcast material which would create "a substantial risk of serious prejudice" to the proceedings. Criminal proceedings become "active" as soon as one of the following has occurred: a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest is issued, a summons has been issued, or a person has been charged, and they remain so until such time as the accused has been acquitted or convicted. Civil proceedings, for example libel proceedings or proceedings for misuse of private information, become active when the hearing date for the trial is arranged and, in Scotland, when the record (written case) is closed.

The media and CJ fail this test...

Criminal proceedings become "active" as soon as one of the following has occurred: a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest is issued, a summons has been issued, or a person has been charged, and they remain so until such time as the accused has been acquitted or convicted.

He didn't get as far as trial... he was exonerated and therefore, there would be NO acquittal or conviction, Therefore No contempt of court...(imo)

Now no contempt of court proceeding were brought in relation to saying that Dr Vincent Tabak had plead guilty to "manslaughter"... No time for a fade factor there... Everyone was reminded daily of this apparent fact...

So why didn't the contempt of court ruling apply to Dr Vincent Tabak's case ???


I may have this wrong... But I don't believe so... can someone explain if I have got this wrong please...




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011462/Sun-Daily-Mirror-contempt-court-Joanna-Yeates-murder-articles.html

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-and-reporting-restrictions

http://www.5rb.com/case/attorney-general-v-1-mgn-limited-2-news-group-newspapers-ltd/


http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10



[attachment deleted by admin]

[[...]]

Quote from the above post:

Criminal proceedings become "active" as soon as one of the following has occurred: a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest is issued, a summons has been issued, or a person has been charged, and they remain so until such time as the accused has been acquitted or convicted.

Everyone steers clear of Dr Vincent Tabak... Everyone steers clear of talking about the Joanna Yeates case, When I have stated the obvious, still no-one will support anything I have said, or will maybe state that the protocols were not followed or even with the image of the tiles being painted...They would rather Pretend that I must be having a vision and imagining such details... When it's Blatantly Obvious that after Joanna Yeates death The tiles in the kitchen window sill were painted, and can been seen to have been painted with the 2 different images I have always used to illustrate this point....

But whilst looking at what I posted above.. I began to wonder if there was possibly an outstanding warrant? And an outstanding warrant that hasn't been served as yet,(or is on hold) but would therefore make any reference to this case, prejudicial..

There has to be something legal in place for an entire media to keep quiet, so long and at the time of Dr Vincent Tabak's trial......Were even when the media had visited Flat 1 44, Canygne Road Bristol, they didn't point out once what they had witnessed there, in terms of lack of protocol.. Bob The Builder doing a bad job... Forensic gloves ripped and wiping noses...A Flat that has been staged.... So many examples of failure to follow protocol.. Yet they appear to turn a blind eye to this...

Is the case still being Investigated?? It is not as daft as it may appear...

From the CPS.Gov

The Police will provide the CPS the results of their enquiries. This will include a list of warrants that they think should be withdrawn, and a list of warrants that they think should continue in force, providing reasons in each case.

CPS prosecutors will review the substantive offences in accordance with the Full Code Test of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, i.e. the evidential and public interest stages. They must bear in mind that mere lapse of time does not itself mean that either of these stages can no longer be satisfied.

When I was asked if I believed that you couldn't have so many people involved in such a deception, the answer is "Yes" you could... They being the media, would not be able to speak about the case, if a warrant was still in force...

So is it down to the CPS?? The Police?? What has stopped the real truth of this case ever being made public?/ And why when we have so many Investigative Journalists around , do they not question any discrepancies in this case??

It should realistically be an amazing opportunity for such Journalists, who have knowledge of crime and law and could in effect get their teeth right into this mystery that is "The Joanna Yeates Case"!!!!

So maybe the question needs to be...

Are there any outstanding warrants for anyone in The Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation???
 Or should I say "Operation Braid"???Or something that would put the media in contempt of court if they ever spoke about the case.... Other than to repeat the narrative.. That Dr Vincent Tabak is a killer!!

Edit.. Of course this is theoretical from my perspective, I was trying to see if it was a possibility, and I believe it is... That also might add weight to me once being told that this was a "Cold Case"!!


https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/withdrawal-warrants