The legalities in Leeds
I note that at least one of your conspiracy-theorist correspondents, along with the usual suspects on far-right websites and social media, have embraced the case of a man in the United Kingdom who was jailed for “reporting” on a criminal trial in Leeds, northern England.
This is not a matter of thwarted freedom of speech, and the man in question is not a martyr to that honourable cause.
England, like many other countries, has a legal system that is designed to seek the truth, punish wrongdoers and protect the innocent.
Reporting restrictions such as those imposed in Leeds are not uncommon. They are used to ensure that juries and witnesses are not tampered with, and that justice is done.
In some cases, details of the defendants, the charges or points of evidence are not made public to protect not just them, since they may be innocent, but also witnesses and the people who may have been victims of crime. In many cases, identifying the defendant will also identify the complainant- victim.
Along with other convictions, the man being hailed as a hero broke reporting restrictions in a previous case and was taken before a court, where he was told that if he did so again, he would go to jail. He did it again, and he was sent to jail. It’s really as simple as that.
Let’s be clear about what he did: He used a social media livestream function to record people involved in a very sensitive court case and to comment on that case. What he did could have potentially led to a mistrial, which may have seen the defendants go free.
Rather than being a champion of truth and justice, his actions could have put guilty people back on the street and endangered the lives of victims and witnesses. Or, it could have besmirched forever the good character of innocent defendants.
A judge and jury should decide who is innocent and who is guilty, not a stupid, nasty man with a smartphone that’s plugged into Facebook Live, or his ignorant followers.
B Davies
