I
was asked this question at 6.15 am today. And, if I knew the answer, was I
available for a BBC radio interview immediately after the 7.00 am news?
No
and Yes were my answers – so I subsequently had a chat with BBC Radio’s Adrian
Goldberg.
The
question arose because the Birmingham Mail had asked West Midlands Police to
disclose the names and images of ten suspects it had been hunting for at least
a decade for crimes including rape and murder.
Initially,
the force had refused to name any of the suspects, pointing to the relevant
exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act. The Mail reported that the force had explained that naming them would be
an unfair breach of their privacy.
This
decision was criticized by local MP Khalid Mahmood as being “utterly bizzare.”
But
lets get real, here.
The media has no automatic right to be informed by the police of
the name of a person who is under investigation or who has been charged with a
criminal offence.
While
not naming nine of the ten suspects, the police did provide background
information on them, and they indicated that there were operational reasons for
withholding their identities.
So
I’m not joining the rush to condemn the police for their behaviour. There are
often extremely good reasons why suspects should not be named – particularly
when there is no serious public interest at stake.
The
National Police Chief’s Council (formerly known as ACPO, the Association of
Chief Police Officers) currently considers that:
- Those who have been charged should be named.
- For those who have been arrested, there is a presumption that they should not be named;
But, that presumption can be displaced where (and only where):
- Releasing the name promotes the prevention or detection of crime; and/or
- There is a serious public interest in releasing the name.
Many
suspects are never arrested or charged – for a
variety of reasons including lack of evidence of their guilt or positive
evidence of their innocence. Remember the witch-hunt against Christopher
Jeffries, the retired Bristol teacher arrested on suspicion of the murder of
his tenant Joanne Yates in 2010. His life was turned upside down following the news
of his arrest, even though he was later publicly exonerated. He was able to
recover substantial damages from the media organisations that had unfairly
named him, but no amount of money can properly account for the impact to his
reputation.
As Lord Leveson recommended in his 2012 report on the culture,
practices and ethics of the press:
“…Police forces must weigh very carefully the public
interest considerations of taking the media on police operations against the
rights of the individuals who are the subject of such an operation… I think
that it should be made abundantly clear that save in exceptional and clearly
identified circumstances (for example, where there may be an immediate risk to
the public), the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or
suspected of a crime should not be released to the press or the public.”
I won’t be encouraging vigilantes to join this particular
witch-hunt.
Sources:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/west-midlands-police-u-turn-9835858
http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/latest-news/news.aspx?id=3406
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2074.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270941/0780_ii.pdf (Volume 2, p.984,
paragraph 3.3)
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/media-law/media-identification-of-suspects.htm
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/media-law/media-identification-of-suspects.htm
.
Posts
