Can't be named for legal reasons

Can't be named for legal reasons

Author
Discussion

alfa pint

Original Poster:

3,856 posts

212 months

Tuesday 19th June 2012
quotequote all
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.

rohrl

8,756 posts

146 months

Tuesday 19th June 2012
quotequote all
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.

Steffan

10,362 posts

229 months

Tuesday 19th June 2012
quotequote all
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.

Eric Mc

122,167 posts

266 months

Tuesday 19th June 2012
quotequote all
Sometimes adults aren't named because related or associated children might be affected.

alfa pint

Original Poster:

3,856 posts

212 months

Tuesday 19th June 2012
quotequote all
Many thanks for the clarification. Prejudice against another case seems the most likely, seeing as though all children involved are now dead.

Ozzie Osmond

21,189 posts

247 months

Tuesday 19th June 2012
quotequote all
Mentally deficient?

rohrl

8,756 posts

146 months

Tuesday 19th June 2012
quotequote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
Mentally deficient?
The OP or his wife? Whichever, that isn't very polite Ozzie.

Ozzie Osmond

21,189 posts

247 months

Tuesday 19th June 2012
quotequote all
rohrl said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
Mentally deficient?
The OP or his wife? Whichever, that isn't very polite Ozzie.
I think that where a mentally deficient person is accused of a crime their identity may be protected. Not least because a mentally deficient person does not have the capacity to commit a crime so cannot plead guilty or be convicted. They can, however, be detained for treatment until recovered to normal health.