Can't be named for legal reasons
Discussion
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...
I understand why someone under the age of 16 shouldn't be publically named, but can someone please explain what the legal reasons behind keeping a 36 year old anonymous might be? Wife asked the question and I can't answer it.
I understand why someone under the age of 16 shouldn't be publically named, but can someone please explain what the legal reasons behind keeping a 36 year old anonymous might be? Wife asked the question and I can't answer it.
rohrl said:
On first reading it looks like the 36 year-old may be facing a further trial for other offences which the prosecution doesn't want to risk by prejudicial information being released beforehand.
Sounds about right to me. The CPS are pathologically concerned with not allowing conduct in one trial to prejudice another. The Tony Martin complete horlicks being a textbook example of how to make a complete expensive mess by prejudicial conduct. The man had done nothing wrong and his life was ruined. And the taxpayer has picked up the compensation bill. As we do.In this case the concern will be that all the charges can be brought against the accused in sequential trials. Hence the considerable caution.
rohrl said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
Mentally deficient?
The OP or his wife? Whichever, that isn't very polite Ozzie.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff