Injunctions?

Jeltz

Jeltz

Messages
3,188
Location
Wiltshire
Back last September there was a big story as a 30 year old teacher and 15 year old pupil "eloped". Today said teacher is in court and although the name of the pupil was well reported in September it is excluded from every news story I have seen.

Back in December a sad story relating to the pupil's parents appeared on most media websites but very rapidly they were removed.

It appears that there is an injunction preventing reporting of that family and to be fair there isn't a great deal to be gained by dragging their names through the press but I do wonder how much is being kept quiet from the public at large.
 
I remember this story, and the girls name. I thought it was strange that they stopped naming her in the articles following the story.

There's probably a whole lot of knowledge out there that we don't know.
 
It's probably a legal precedent. Quite possibly a "Mary Bell order". Many years ago (1970s?) Mary and Norma Bell (no relation) were convicted of murdering a child. The two girls were something like 10 or 11 years old and it was acknowledged that Mary was the instigator. The Mary Bell order was actually set up to keep her anonymity and protect her rights or whatever... clearly too late to make any difference to her, especially as it was nicknamed a Mary Bell order. But... it has been used since, infamously by a "famous" politician of the Thatcher era to keep the press quiet about a kid he had sired out of wedlock (nice man!). Sleazy politicians and overpaid footballers can now rest easy as they now have access to superinjunctions.

This has all been done from memory, and I'm not a lawyer... so feel free to correct me! I've clearly had too much coffee... hence me banging on about this!
 
WiffWaff said:
...clearly too late to make any difference to her, especially as it was nicknamed a Mary Bell order.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of the sign I used to pass on the way to Stapely Water Gardens. It had a big arrow and read, "Secret Nuclear Bunker".
 
In the era of the internet I can't help feeling that the quickest way to gain some unwanted personal publicity is to go for an injunction. You can just wager that someone somewhere will feel impelled to search & disclose.

JohnnyO. \:icon_razz:
 
Presumably there is an injunction preventing naming the girl; which is fair enough, as she should be protected in so far as is possible from having this haunt her for the rest of her life. The teacher clearly breached trust and took advantage of his position. I'm sure any parent of teenage girls would hope that any male teacher in the school would ensure that a situation such as occurred did not develop in the first place.
 
Indeed Sharon, he should face the full force of the law. It appears that he commenced his relationship over a year before so it can't have been a moment of madness and even if she had been of an age to consent he shouldn't have engaged in a relationship with a pupil.

My point is more that this is an obvious case where there appears to be an injunction, and I do wonder how many other cases there are. There is a fine line between personal privacy and gagging the press, such situations are open to abuse.
 
On the subject of injunctions, I do not think that one is necessary here. The identity of the "victim" is protected under s37, s39 and s40 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Any publication of names, addresses or schools such that victim may be identified become a quasi contempt of court. The same cover applies for committal proceedings under s8 of The Magistrates Court Act 1980 and s5 of The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 which prevents publication of the victim's name in rape or other sexual offences. Since she was 14/15 at the time when sexual activities commenced then a charge of rape could be bought - even if she consented - since a child is deemed not to have the capacity to consent under the age of sixteen. So there are lots of reasons why her name cannot be disclosed.

If I recall the case correctly, the girl was initially named because it was a missing persons enquiry and nobody had had any charges bought against them. Even when the defendant was arrested in France and then extradited she could be named but as soon as he arrived back here and was charged then the entire case becomes sub judice and her identity (even though anybody who had read the papers would know it) becomes covered by the above act.

David
 
davidb said:
Had been a silk then I wouldn't even have been allowed to put my comment on here without my clerk expecting fees!!

David
Click to expand...

More a nylon or polyester then?

I'll clerk for you. 5% cut.

(10% is my silk cut.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom