Wandering Off Topic

[G-Unit]

Was listening to a piece of the Today program about how the identity of the murderer of Grace Millane  has been kept a secret and thought it an interesting concept.  After all, why should it matter that a criminal's identity be known to the public , particularly in advance of a conviction.

It was done because of the media, it seems. If they reported objectively it wouldn't be necessary imo.

[Brietta]

It was done because of the media, it seems. If they reported objectively it wouldn't be necessary imo.

Sub Judice Rule

The term sub judice literally means "under judicial consideration". The sub judice rule is part of the law relating to contempt of court. The rule governs what public statements can be made about ongoing legal proceedings before, principally, the courts.

The basis for the sub judice rule is that, in Ontario's legal system, it is the role of the courts to deal with legal issues that are before it. The courts' role should not be usurped by others making public statements about how these issues should be dealt with.

The rule applies where court proceedings are ongoing, and through all stages of appeal until the matter is completed. It may also apply where court proceedings have not yet been started, but are imminent.

The rule is not limited to parties in a case or their lawyers. It applies to the public and to statements by public officials. The principles underlying the rule also apply to statements made by MPPs in the Legislature, and are overseen by the Speaker, by virtue of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly.

The sub judice rule may be breached by public statements that risk prejudging matters or issues that are before the courts. It is the concept of prejudging that is central to the rule.

A breach of the sub judice rule can include, for instance, statements urging the court to reach a particular result in a matter, comments on the strength or weakness of a party's case or particular issue, or comments on witnesses or evidence in a case.

The sub judice rule does not prohibit fair and accurate reporting of the factual content of ongoing judicial proceedings by the media, as long as the report does not usurp the court's role by prejudging the case or its legal issues.

In addition to the sub judice rule, there may be other limitations on what can be said about a legal proceeding. For example, the Youth Criminal Justice Act limits what can be said about proceedings involving young persons who are in conflict with the criminal justice system. Also, courts can issue publication bans that limit what can be published about a particular matter.

Whether any particular statement raises sub judice concerns depends on the nature of the statement, the case involved and other circumstances. Members of the media should therefore consult with their legal counsel for advice on what may and may not be said about ongoing legal proceedings.

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/legis/subjudicerule.php#:~:targetText=The%20term%20sub%20judice%20literally,before%2C%20principally%2C%20the%20courts.

[G-Unit]

Sub Judice Rule

The term sub judice literally means "under judicial consideration". The sub judice rule is part of the law relating to contempt of court. The rule governs what public statements can be made about ongoing legal proceedings before, principally, the courts.

The basis for the sub judice rule is that, in Ontario's legal system, it is the role of the courts to deal with legal issues that are before it. The courts' role should not be usurped by others making public statements about how these issues should be dealt with.

The rule applies where court proceedings are ongoing, and through all stages of appeal until the matter is completed. It may also apply where court proceedings have not yet been started, but are imminent.

The rule is not limited to parties in a case or their lawyers. It applies to the public and to statements by public officials. The principles underlying the rule also apply to statements made by MPPs in the Legislature, and are overseen by the Speaker, by virtue of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly.

The sub judice rule may be breached by public statements that risk prejudging matters or issues that are before the courts. It is the concept of prejudging that is central to the rule.

A breach of the sub judice rule can include, for instance, statements urging the court to reach a particular result in a matter, comments on the strength or weakness of a party's case or particular issue, or comments on witnesses or evidence in a case.

The sub judice rule does not prohibit fair and accurate reporting of the factual content of ongoing judicial proceedings by the media, as long as the report does not usurp the court's role by prejudging the case or its legal issues.

In addition to the sub judice rule, there may be other limitations on what can be said about a legal proceeding. For example, the Youth Criminal Justice Act limits what can be said about proceedings involving young persons who are in conflict with the criminal justice system. Also, courts can issue publication bans that limit what can be published about a particular matter.

Whether any particular statement raises sub judice concerns depends on the nature of the statement, the case involved and other circumstances. Members of the media should therefore consult with their legal counsel for advice on what may and may not be said about ongoing legal proceedings.

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/legis/subjudicerule.php#:~:targetText=The%20term%20sub%20judice%20literally,before%2C%20principally%2C%20the%20courts.

What has Canada got to do with anything?

[The General]

What has Canada got to do with anything?

Wall of text TL:DR CBA

[G-Unit]

Wall of text TL:DR CBA

Skim reading is a handy skill, I find.

[barrier]

Skim reading is a handy skill, I find.

Especially with a overload of nonsense.

[Brietta]

What has Canada got to do with anything?

As much as New Zealand has.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Was listening to a piece of the Today program about how the identity of the murderer of Grace Millane  has been kept a secret and thought it an interesting concept.  After all, why should it matter that a criminal's identity be known to the public , particularly in advance of a conviction.

Perhaps Robbity will know as it’s his country’s daft (imo) decision.  That said, his name and picture were revealed in the Evening Standard today if you’re interested.

[Brietta]

Perhaps Robbity will know as it’s his country’s daft (imo) decision.  That said, his name and picture were revealed in the Evening Standard today if you’re interested.

I'm in full agreement with the verdict of the New Zealand jury.  Having read a little of the evidence I was of the opinion had this been a British trial there was a huge probability he might have walked.

[jassi]

Perhaps Robbity will know as it’s his country’s daft (imo) decision.  That said, his name and picture were revealed in the Evening Standard today if you’re interested.

Yeah, saw that earlier this afternoon.
Naming after conviction seems reasonable to me

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'm in full agreement with the verdict of the New Zealand jury.  Having read a little of the evidence I was of the opinion had this been a British trial there was a huge probability he might have walked.

Me too, I thought witholding his name from the press during the trial was daft though.

[barrier]

Yeah, saw that earlier this afternoon.
Naming after conviction seems reasonable to me

According to this a suspect in NZ can get a suppression order,it doesn't apply out side of NZ though.


The identity of Grace Millane's killer was kept a secret during his trial due to a suppression order that bans New Zealand media from naming and picturing him.

The 27-year-old man cannot be unmasked there even though a jury found him guilty of strangling the British backpacker in his Auckland hotel room and burying her body in a suitcase.

The law doesn't extend to international media, including agencies in Britain, meaning they are free to name the man despite the strict and unusual reporting restrictions in New Zealand.




https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/grace-millane-suppression-order-cant-20933973

[Miss Taken Identity]

It was done because of the media, it seems. If they reported objectively it wouldn't be necessary imo.

I agree G. There is always that case of 'trial by media' which has no place in the already dodgy criminal justice system.  It can also lead to vigilanites harming and killing innocent people.

I also agree that  some of those accused of sex offences should be withheld until a verdict is made. Too many innocent men and women are being hounded without a proper investigation, while guilty are protected in some way.

I do not buy newspapers- never have. I hear snippets and if it is interesting I call my friend who is an independant journalist for more info. I sometimes catch the news at other  friends house,but the social media is another step back to the 16th century with witch hunts.   Name calling and bullying  of people who are independant thinkers.

Being shoiuted down by the 'chosen woke people' about fake climate change, Vegans , gender fluidity. They have names for those who are unwoke mentally ill aka being phobic  like it is a bad thing.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I guess you’re absolutely disgusted that the Gasoar Statement was released and condemn it being made public in the strongest possible terms?

[G-Unit]

I agree G. There is always that case of 'trial by media' which has no place in the already dodgy criminal justice system.  It can also lead to vigilanites harming and killing innocent people.

I also agree that  some of those accused of sex offences should be withheld until a verdict is made. Too many innocent men and women are being hounded without a proper investigation, while guilty are protected in some way.

I do not buy newspapers- never have. I hear snippets and if it is interesting I call my friend who is an independant journalist for more info. I sometimes catch the news at other  friends house,but the social media is another step back to the 16th century with witch hunts.   Name calling and bullying  of people who are independant thinkers.

Being shoiuted down by the 'chosen woke people' about fake climate change, Vegans , gender fluidity. They have names for those who are unwoke mentally ill aka being phobic  like it is a bad thing.

I stopped buying newspapers as the quality dropped. Now I read them online if I need to, but they are really not reliable sources of facts.