News1 min ago
Can We Now Discuss This Case?
266 Answers
ABSpareEditor
I don't know if this was the story that we can't debate on, but according to the Daily Mail reporting restrictions were lifted this afternoon.
I don't know if this was the story that we can't debate on, but according to the Daily Mail reporting restrictions were lifted this afternoon.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Talbot,
// The police did tell his lawyer he was being released //
He was arrested for Breach of the Peace, which is something he might expect to be bailed for. A member of the police could have summised that that would be the case here.
But it escalated to him being charged with the far more serious crime of Contempt of Court. Every police officer would know that a realese would be unlikely.
So my guess is, the comment about release was about Breach of the peace offence, which he was not actually charged with.
// The police did tell his lawyer he was being released //
He was arrested for Breach of the Peace, which is something he might expect to be bailed for. A member of the police could have summised that that would be the case here.
But it escalated to him being charged with the far more serious crime of Contempt of Court. Every police officer would know that a realese would be unlikely.
So my guess is, the comment about release was about Breach of the peace offence, which he was not actually charged with.
isnt there a case where the police said - confess to this murder and you can go home to your dog....
so he did .... and er didnt ....
anyway
https:/
sort of sets the flavour in this
Gorgeous George - ( hereinafter Mr Galloway will be referred to as 'GG' ) is applying to the court to imprison a Mrs Ali-Khan for getting on his tots
and she has already given undertakings not to....
( successful )
so he did .... and er didnt ....
anyway
https:/
sort of sets the flavour in this
Gorgeous George - ( hereinafter Mr Galloway will be referred to as 'GG' ) is applying to the court to imprison a Mrs Ali-Khan for getting on his tots
and she has already given undertakings not to....
( successful )
A bit different from the TR case, but theres something wrong with jailing people secretly. Ive know this woman since I was a teenager ( I'm friends with her brother)
https:/
https:/
Doing a very quick search on reported cases
In 1970 a group of 19 students interrupted a libel trial by running into Court. The Judge fined some (who apologised) and immediately jailed a number of others for 3 months.
Another case concerned Jane Palmer who went to watch her boyfriends burglary trial. Durng the trial she threatened a number of witnesses throughout the day. The Judge ordered her arrest - she was arrested later than evening and brought before the Judge the next day. Jailed for 3 months that day.
These are just 2 examples.
In 1970 a group of 19 students interrupted a libel trial by running into Court. The Judge fined some (who apologised) and immediately jailed a number of others for 3 months.
Another case concerned Jane Palmer who went to watch her boyfriends burglary trial. Durng the trial she threatened a number of witnesses throughout the day. The Judge ordered her arrest - she was arrested later than evening and brought before the Judge the next day. Jailed for 3 months that day.
These are just 2 examples.
Oh fgs. It wasnt done secretly. It was properly reported at the time. It was just her name was redacted to prevent her father being identified. Just like in children proceedings. There is ALWAYS an order stating that the children must not be identified. But let's just believe what the press say instead of going to the proper source and finding out for ourselves.
//she wasn't even allowed to ring her dad to tell her she was in prison//
//"They said I wasn't allowed to speak to the public, because of the court order//
//I wasn't even allowed to ring my family//
Sounds pretty secret to me BM.
//But let's just believe what the press say instead of going to the proper source and finding out for ourselves//
I had the proper source, shes my mates sister.
//"They said I wasn't allowed to speak to the public, because of the court order//
//I wasn't even allowed to ring my family//
Sounds pretty secret to me BM.
//But let's just believe what the press say instead of going to the proper source and finding out for ourselves//
I had the proper source, shes my mates sister.
From the Gorgeous George Contempt of Court case as reported by Precious Pete:
UPON the Application of the Applicant/ Defendant by Notice dated 20 February 2018 for the committal of the Respondent/ Claimant for contempt of court in respect of 26 breaches of undertakings given by her to the Court ... AND UPON the court having adjourned until 19 April 2018 the issue of what penalty to impose...
Hey, that Hon Mr Justice Warby is a laid-back guy, don't you think?
(Anyone know what Mrs Ali-Khan actually did to upset George?)
Barmaid's references to disturbances in court and threats to witnesses aren't remotely comparable to the TR case are they? The contempt of court in the Leeds case appears to rest on (1) whether TR was breaching a reporting ban as he was, apparently, when reporting the Canterbury one (I haven't see it explicitly stated that there was a ban, by the way - does anybody know?), or (2) whether TR was "commenting about [the case] in a way that could prejudice [the trial]".
UPON the Application of the Applicant/ Defendant by Notice dated 20 February 2018 for the committal of the Respondent/ Claimant for contempt of court in respect of 26 breaches of undertakings given by her to the Court ... AND UPON the court having adjourned until 19 April 2018 the issue of what penalty to impose...
Hey, that Hon Mr Justice Warby is a laid-back guy, don't you think?
(Anyone know what Mrs Ali-Khan actually did to upset George?)
Barmaid's references to disturbances in court and threats to witnesses aren't remotely comparable to the TR case are they? The contempt of court in the Leeds case appears to rest on (1) whether TR was breaching a reporting ban as he was, apparently, when reporting the Canterbury one (I haven't see it explicitly stated that there was a ban, by the way - does anybody know?), or (2) whether TR was "commenting about [the case] in a way that could prejudice [the trial]".
And yes there are reporting restrictions. There always are in cases of a sexual nature.
Secondly, if TR's actions were in any way comparable to his actions at Canterbury, yes it could amount to interfereing with the administration of justice.
The whole point of this was to either prevent having to have the jury discharged without hearing the entire case or even worse having the defendants convicted and then be able to appeal the conviction on the basis of a lack of a fair trial.
Secondly, if TR's actions were in any way comparable to his actions at Canterbury, yes it could amount to interfereing with the administration of justice.
The whole point of this was to either prevent having to have the jury discharged without hearing the entire case or even worse having the defendants convicted and then be able to appeal the conviction on the basis of a lack of a fair trial.
//The whole point of this was to either prevent having to have the jury discharged without hearing the entire case or even worse having the defendants convicted and then be able to appeal the conviction on the basis of a lack of a fair trial//
...all of which I understand, Barmaid. But that doesn't mean a BBC film camera can't stand outside a court and film defendants entering the court, does it? Just about every defendant in Operation Yewtree was named, filmed, and the charges against them publicised.
...all of which I understand, Barmaid. But that doesn't mean a BBC film camera can't stand outside a court and film defendants entering the court, does it? Just about every defendant in Operation Yewtree was named, filmed, and the charges against them publicised.
