Grooming Trial On Keighley

[Ric.ror]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/10/keighley-girl-raped-by-14-men-court-told

I'm not sure if it is mentioned here but in one report I read one of these creatures is named and its stated he is not on trial
Now why would that be?

[Buenchico]

Possibly because he's already pleaded guilty?

[normchurch]

just another bunch of *** perverts.

[normchurch]

just another bunch of perverts from a country in the Asian subcontinent that isn't india or sri lanka

[anotheoldgit]

I dare not comment in case the subject of the 'hooligans on the train' is brought into the debate, just as much a serious case, in some minds, maybe.

[Ric.ror]

But wouldn't it have said he had already pleaded guilty if that was the case

[jackthehat]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3312376/Schoolgirl-aged-13-14-repeatedly-raped-sexually-abused-passed-round-15-Asian-males.html

This is the Daily Mails report on it.

[Ric.ror]

It names one of the men but he is not on trial
Now if he was to go on trial apart from the others why is he named here and - if he has been tried when not mention that too?
All seems a bit bizarre

[dannyk13]

According to my local paper the person named raped the girl in 2011 but did not take part in the rape before the court.

[dannyk13]

Having read further it appears that the named person was 15 at the time of his rape and would have been dealt with at a juvenile court.

[Ric.ror]

So why was he named?
Is it normal to name a juvenile - even after he is no longer a juvenile

[Gromit]

You may have heard the term 'Reporting Restrictions Apply'? This is one instance. If the guilt and length of sentence of the man not on trial here were known to the public, then that would prejudice the reporting. This is a precaution in case some of the men are innocent.

Imagine you and a colleague were accused of stealing £10,000 from your employer. His trial was first and he was sentenced to 5 years. Next it your trial, but you are completely innocent. Would you want it reported as MrRic.Ror is on trial and his colleague has already been jailed? The fact that he is an associate assumes your guilt when it shouldn't.

The trial is your defence against the accusations against you. Not what someone else has already been convicted of.

[Gromit]

// Postponing prejudicial contemporaneous reports of proceedings

Under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the Crown Court has power in certain restricted circumstances to order that publication of reports of part or all of the proceedings held in open court be postponed for so long as necessary, where such a postponement is necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those or other proceedings.
Under section 4(2), Courts should consider whether publication would create a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice and whether postponement of publication of a fair and accurate report of part or the whole of the proceedings which have been held in open court is necessary to avoid that risk. The court should only exercise its discretion to make an order after weighing the competing interests of open justice and fair trial.
The courts have suggested that where possible the question of any imposition of reporting restrictions are best dealt with in advance of trial. The Crown Court has discretion to invite representations from the media or their legal representatives as to whether an order should be made, varied or lifted. It may make a temporary order to restrict publication pending its hearing to determine whether an order should be made. The media has the formal right to appeal against the Crown Court’s imposition of an order under section 159 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The Practice Direction (Contempt of Court Act 1981)5 requires that the order must be committed to writing either by the judge or by the clerk under his supervision. It must be formulated in precise terms and must state (a) its precise scope, (b) the time at which it shall cease to have effect, if appropriate, and (c) the specific purpose of making the order.
It may be appropriate for the judge to make clear whether and to what extent the terms of the order can be published. [Archbold 2000: 28-77 to 28-83] //

[jourdain2]

I've been saying to OH for some time that Keighley would feature very soon in a case like this. It goes back years.

The 'not on trial' bit seems odd and I don't understand even if he was underage at the time.

[Ric.ror]

I've given you best answer Gromit despite one glaringly obvious mistake ;-))