About Eric Frank Expertise Ex police detective with 15 years recent experience in the criminal law. Can assist with questions as to how it affects victims and persons suspected of crime. Can also assist as to whether a criminal prosecution is the best or most effective method to pursue. Experienced in Criminal court procedure.
Please note: 99% of the questions I am asked result in the same answer: GET A LAWYER. Trust me on this, if I was in danger of losing my liberty, I would not be looking for advice on the internet, I would GET A LAWYER!
Expert: Eric Frank Date: 2/7/2001 Subject: When a case 'active'?
Question Dear Eric,
I am hoping you may be able to help in the matter of some research I am conducting.
I am led to believe that a case becomes active one a person has been either arrested, charged, a warrant issued or a summons to appear in court issued. And it's that this point that the media are no longer able to report any other details than name, age, address and occupation for fear of... (what? Subjudice?)
Am I on the right lines so far? Assuming I am, I'd like to pose a hypothetical question. Say a person was found unconscious at the scene of a crime and was taken to hospital where they lay in a coma. In this instance, how would the case become active? Would police simply have to wait until he or she regained consciousness to charge him? And in this instance would that give the media free rein to then investigate and report on that person's background?
I hope I've been clear with my question and I look forward to your response.
Yours
Andrew
Answer Well, the short answer is: a case becomes 'active' as soon as a SUBSTANTIATED allegation of crime is made and an investigation commences. In the course of such an investigation it is the sole prerogative of the Police what, if any, information is released. Obviously the Police have to be mindful of releasing information that may either hinder their investigation by alerting an outstanding suspect or that may subsequently prejudice a later court case, and in most cases will not release anything other than the briefest of details. This policy is sometimes relaxed when witnesses are sought to a particularly serious offence, or where the identity (but not the whereabouts) of a suspect are not known and his early arrest is imperative to prevent harm to others or further offences being committed.
Should the press decide to take it upon themselves to conduct their own investigation and publish the results prior to any actual charges being laid, they could be liable (in the person of the reporter or editor) to being charged with obstructing the police.
Once a person has been charged and a court date set, the matter of release of information is at the discretion of the Judge or Magistrate. In the UK, it is considered that the presumption of innocence is paramount, therefore, unless eztraordinary circumstances prevail, the Press are restricted to merely publishing names and addresses and not details of the offence. Any additional coverage would be considered Contempt of court, as the Editors of various National Newspapers discovered, and would normally lead to the Defendant successfully submitting that a fair trial was impossible, as any juror or magistrate would have already formed an impression of guilt.
The recent case of Harold Shipman is an exception to this rule, in that a) the forensic evidence was so overwhelming and b) it was clearly in the public interest that other potential victims or witnesses be identified. Even here tho, the actual details of the M.O. and so on were not released until after conviction.
Well, this short answer turned out longer than I intended, but I hope it helps you in your research. If I can be of any further help, please submit a follow up.
Good Luck!
