Time For Reporting Restrictions on Police Enquiries IMO

[ExChrispy Porker]

Derek Smith said:

skeggysteve said:

Derek Smith said:

...but radio news sometimes runs on a different legal system.

I agree with all you posted but am confused by this bit.

It would appear that many local stations do not instruct their commentators and reporters as to the intricacies of the law. One of my roles used to be as press officer for my force from 6pm to around 7am when on nights/lates, and all weekends. I found that local papers and local TV news would stick to the rules so I could give background without any worry about it being broadcast. But local radio didn't seem to know what they should not publicise. In the end I would give one sort of briefing to press and tv and another to radio.

It obviously didn't happen all the time but enough for me, and others in my position, to make them a special case.

BBC local radio used to monitor our radio traffic. Within seconds of an 'interesting' sounding job being mentioned on the police radio, a reporter would call ' We've heard something is going on at XYZ' Often this would be before officers had even arrived!

[Pesty]

evenflow said:

Marty Funkhouser said:

Its absolutely absurd to have information published about a suspect in an enquiry. For a start, imagine if this guy is innocent??? There are now a minority of people who'll forever associate this guy in Bristol with being a murderer. Fine, if/when he is charged with murder then thats announced but nothing more than that IMO.

Absolutely agree.

Especially as in this case the guy looks like a Little Britain character - and he has therefore been deemed immediately guilty by the press and public. If he is innocent, his life is now effectively over.

Me too, When did they start naming these people?

didn't they just used to say a man is helping with enquiries or a suspect has been arrested. That is all the story needs. Wait until after the conviction if there is one.

[evenflow]

So...

Christopher Jeffries is out on police bail.

Police are urging women in Bristol not to walk home alone at night because the murderer remains at large.

They are trying to trace a 4x4 seen near where she was dumped.

A policeman in a press conference has just said:
"At the moment we don't know who killed her but we are determined to find out."

Have they destroyed Christopher Jeffries life for no reason?

[jmorgan]

evenflow said:

So...

Christopher Jeffries is out on police bail.

Police are urging women in Bristol not to walk home alone at night because the murderer remains at large.

They are trying to trace a 4x4 seen near where she was dumped.

A policeman in a press conference has just said:
"At the moment we don't know who killed her but we are determined to find out."

Have they destroyed Christopher Jeffries life for no reason?

They as in the press and internet forum experts (I think you meant plod?)? If he is innocent then yes. Police were following whatever they were. If the press were not camped out on this story afraid to let it go then maybe not.

[Derek Smith]

evenflow said:

So...

Christopher Jeffries is out on police bail.

Police are urging women in Bristol not to walk home alone at night because the murderer remains at large.

They are trying to trace a 4x4 seen near where she was dumped.

A policeman in a press conference has just said:
"At the moment we don't know who killed her but we are determined to find out."

Have they destroyed Christopher Jeffries life for no reason?

No reason?

Before any arrest is made there will be a conference between the CPS and the police. The discussion will be documented. The reasons for arrest will be included.

Police will be reluctant to arrest as there is a limit to how long they can detain someone before charge. Once the time is eaten up then there is no alternative but to release. Defence briefs often play the time game to limit the police freedom of action.

If the police have sufficient evidence they virtually must arrest. The idea of asking the suspect to attend the station and then trap them is the stuff of Midsomer Murder.

Further, the police have not destroyed Jeffries' life. They didn't even release his name. It is not they who have discussed his sexuality, what pupils said about him or that he bought the house from a paedophile. So if anyone has ruined his life I feel it is not the police who would have been extremely reluctant to arrest.

CPS will often direct that a person must be interviewed under caution and there are lots of various bits of case law that stipulate that a person must be arrested.

One problem with arresting someone on suspicion of a serious offence when another person is later charged is that it gives the defence a lever. The enquiry will then have to virtually prove that the first person arrested did not, or preferably could not, commit the offence. So police will only do so if they have no alternative.

I used to work with a DI whose MO was that he would not arrest anyone until he didn't need to question them. If he couldn't prove it without their confession then he would just work harder. But the law now stipulates that this is, in practice, fraught with danger.

[Derek Smith]

ExChrispy Porker said:

BBC local radio used to monitor our radio traffic. Within seconds of an 'interesting' sounding job being mentioned on the police radio, a reporter would call ' We've heard something is going on at XYZ' Often this would be before officers had even arrived!

I think you must be wrong there. It was probably an informant. The local press are so strick about the correct way of doing things that such law breaking would be against their principles. After all, they criticise the police for doing things that often are accepted practice. And any possibility of an errant police officer they are first in line to bring it to the public's attention even when they have no actual evidence of wrong doing.

So as i say, they would never do that sort of thin. I can reassure everyone on that point.