The present situation in the UK is that suspects of criminal activity can have their details disclosed and published to the public. This is how newspapers are able to publish, particularly in high profile cases (take the example of the accused landlord in the Joanna Yeates murder case), the identity of arrested suspects even if it doesn’t result in the suspect being charged.
We posted a blog similar to this a while back in relation to rape suspects and the suggestion they should remain anonymous until they are charged (if they are charged at all). This is because being named as a rape suspect can have serious implications for the accused’s family and social life, work and public perception. Basically, the damage is done merely by being accused and even if not charged, the association with such an awful crime remains.
Unknown to us when writing the rape suspect blog, Lord Justice Treacy and Mr Justice Tugendaht (two of Britain’s senior judges), were engaged in writing a paper in response to a Law Commission Report dealing with the way police release information about suspects to the media. The Law Commission Report proposed the general position should be that names of arrested suspects should be released to the media but that safeguards should be in place to ensure that names are withheld in certain circumstances.
The response from the Judges suggests the complete opposite position should be adopted and the names of arrested suspects remain secret because publishing this information can cause irremediable damage to the person’s reputation. The Judges do however submit that in circumstances where there may be an immediate risk to the public it may be necessary to identify a suspect and publish details to warn the public. The Judges made a further suggestion that suspects should have a civil right to sue the newspapers if material was published that prejudiced their right to a fair trial.
This matter boils down to the conflict between the right to privacy and freedom of expression with the right to a fair trial thrown in the mix. The way the Human Rights Act works is that no right is to take precedence over another although it is certainly arguable where a person’s liberty is at stake (the right to a fair trial), more weight should be given to this right than freedom of expression. There will almost certainly be arguments against this and the issue therefore becomes a balancing act between the rights, with any policy change requiring a proper analysis of both sides. This will not be a simple task…
