Jump to content

Heed The Crown Office Warning On Contempt Of Court.


OlegKuznetsov

Recommended Posts

Yet the big tax case was different? We had blogs the lot, every unemployed tarrier was now a tax expert, the media believed them the guilty verdict was a full gone conclusion..

What did Police Scotland do about it? Was that not breaking the law? Or does the law only apply at police Scotland and the PF they way it does at the Snp? Only when it bloody suits them..

That was a civil case. No one was potentially facing prison.

Potential innocent men could be sent to jail for a crime they haven't committed if someone posts something on here that convinces a jury member (or even a Sheriff/Lord however unlikely that is) that Mr X is guilty. It also works the other way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's the "We were never going to be given a fair trial in Glasgow" card ready to be played ..... mark my words ...

To be fair, they probably won't. It's an uneven number of jurors so the chances are it going to be bias in one direction. I will be stunned if this trial happens in Glasgow.
Link to post
Share on other sites

As pointed out the tax case and this case are totally different,criminal and civil matters have different processes .the public chat about the tax case was wrong but not illegal,we can't risk these bastards getting off on technicalities so box clever is the name of the game

Box clever? Maybe not assume that they're guilty before trial then bud (tu) that was the exact point in this thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is bullshit, has there been any big case in the public interest in the social media years that's not been commented on or speculated about by the general public? This is no different.
If they were to start dishing out contempt charges to the general public for speculation about ongoing court cases the courts would be too busy to deal with any proper criminal activity.

It's a poorly worded statement by the Crown Office and they should clarify exactly what they mean, which I fully expect is "any shit gets posted online in the way of leaked evidence or in the manner of the tax case, yes this means you BBC, and we'll fucking have you". It's the difference between reactive and proactive. Which is fair enough, but if that's what you mean say it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is bullshit, has there been any big case in the public interest in the social media years that's not been commented on or speculated about by the general public? This is no different.

If they were to start dishing out contempt charges to the general public for speculation about ongoing court cases the courts would be too busy to deal with any proper criminal activity.

It's a poorly worded statement by the Crown Office and they should clarify exactly what they mean, which I fully expect is "any shit gets posted online in the way of leaked evidence or in the manner of the tax case, yes this means you BBC, and we'll fucking have you". It's the difference between reactive and proactive. Which is fair enough, but if that's what you mean say it.

I think it is also a reference to what Imran Ahmed was posting on here. A little warning if he does the same again it will be worse than getting the sack if he does it again.
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is bullshit, has there been any big case in the public interest in the social media years that's not been commented on or speculated about by the general public? This is no different.

If they were to start dishing out contempt charges to the general public for speculation about ongoing court cases the courts would be too busy to deal with any proper criminal activity.

It's a poorly worded statement by the Crown Office and they should clarify exactly what they mean, which I fully expect is "any shit gets posted online in the way of leaked evidence or in the manner of the tax case, yes this means you BBC, and we'll fucking have you". It's the difference between reactive and proactive. Which is fair enough, but if that's what you mean say it.

They do not need to charge everyone. They could decide to make examples of one or two people at random. "But what about X? He said the same" is not a valid defence in a Court of Law. It's the same as plod pulling 1 out of a crowd singing TBB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth remembering that the tax cases were not criminal.

Criminal proceedings have different stricter guidelines.

Nonetheless, I share your anger at the leaking of our info.

However, it then highlights the contrast in the rush to judgement in the media regarding our non-criminal case with the almost fleeting scrutiny that the accused in these criminal cases received from that same media.

I am well aware of the difference between company law and criminal law, The fact is their was a leak somewhere within HMRC, who was leaking secret goverment information..

What did Police Scotland do about it?

Are you trying to tell me that no law was broken,? believe it or not stolen Informatiom is a crimanial offence and does not come under company law.

The only difference between both cases is that they did not even try to impose the laws on the big tax leaks, and there is still a guilty party out there laughing at us.

Could you explain why no action was taken regarding sensitive goverment information?

You would be looking at more than a slap on the wrist for that crime would you not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a civil case. No one was potentially facing prison.

Potential innocent men could be sent to jail for a crime they haven't committed if someone posts something on here that convinces a jury member (or even a Sheriff/Lord however unlikely that is) that Mr X is guilty. It also works the other way.

Again leaking sensitive goverment information is a prison sentence, Don't you think these employes sign contracts before they start stating all this?

The goverment can't just have people leaking secret information left, right and bloody centre, the country would be in chaos if that was the case.

Whoever was leaking the information were getting more than a fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again leaking sensitive goverment information is a prison sentence, Don't you think these employes sign contracts before they start stating all this?

The goverment can't just have people leaking secret information left, right and bloody centre, the country would be in chaos if that was the case.

Whoever was leaking the information were getting more than a fine.

Was a complaint not made, investigated and nothing found though?
Link to post
Share on other sites

They do not need to charge everyone. They could decide to make examples of one or two people at random. "But what about X? He said the same" is not a valid defence in a Court of Law. It's the same as plod pulling 1 out of a crowd singing TBB.

I just don't see them charging anyone unless its leaking evidence that could be used in the trials. Discussions, speculations and opinions all based on already released evidence or press reports is all I can see anyone doing unless they're connected to the case in some way. Thats the difference between reactive and proactive as I said.

I honestly don't think there will be an issue with any of us here speculating on guilt, sentences, calling anyone a cunt or asking each others opinions on press articles relating to the case. That shit happens with every case in the public eye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am well aware of the difference between company law and criminal law, The fact is their was a leak somewhere within HMRC, who was leaking secret goverment information..

What did Police Scotland do about it?

Are you trying to tell me that no law was broken,? believe it or not stolen Informatiom is a crimanial offence and does not come under company law.

The only difference between both cases is that they did not even try to impose the laws on the big tax leaks, and there is still a guilty party out there laughing at us.

Could you explain why no action was taken regarding sensitive goverment information?

You would be looking at more than a slap on the wrist for that crime would you not.

Whilst I share your frustration, the tax case wasn't a criminal case, unlike these ones.

In the tax case, not one individual was going to be charged with a crime and serve a sentence possibly including a term inside.

For these other cases, individuals are being held to account under criminal law.

Now, whilst the leaks were illegal, whether or not they were criminal offences would be left to separate cases, for which that condition could apply.

Nonetheless, the tax case was not a criminal one and conforms to different standards and criteria.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am well aware of the difference between company law and criminal law, The fact is their was a leak somewhere within HMRC, who was leaking secret goverment information..

What did Police Scotland do about it?

Are you trying to tell me that no law was broken,? believe it or not stolen Informatiom is a crimanial offence and does not come under company law.

The only difference between both cases is that they did not even try to impose the laws on the big tax leaks, and there is still a guilty party out there laughing at us.

Could you explain why no action was taken regarding sensitive goverment information?

You would be looking at more than a slap on the wrist for that crime would you not.

Police fucking Scotland wouldn't bother their arses with this .They break the same data protection rules every day
Link to post
Share on other sites

Find it all so ironic with all these numbnuts In law coming out with all this protocol garbage yet 3and half years ago ,it was cart blanche to have enemies write ,do ,lie and say anything without impeachment .

Was thinking the exact same mate,double standards as usual in this shithole of a country.

If i had a pound for every dig i seen aimed at us during the months leading up to admin and since then,i would be a multi-millionaire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Quote

 

"On HM Advocate v Charles Green, Craig Whyte et al..."

I'm not a football man. I have no team. I have never been to a football match. I have no intention of extending the frontiers of my experience in this regard. But I aminterested in law, and in free speech, online media, and fair trials. 

In the life of this blog, legal issues and football have seemed increasingly to converge. From the Offensive Behaviour Act, tax obligations, paid and unpaid, defamation threats and insolvency events -- legal curiosity is increasingly pulling me into the wacky world of the SFA and SPFL and the various legal ructions which have gripped them and their members.

But approaching us is the trial to beat them all. Former Rangers heid neeps Charles Green and Craig Whyte have been indicted for a range of offences, along with lawyer, Gary Withey, and Duff and Phelps administrators David Whitehouse, Paul Clark and David Grier. Today brings news from a preliminary hearing in the High Court that a number of charges against these men have now been deleted from the indictment. To suggest this case will provoke public interest and comment qualifies for the understatement of the legal year. If the indictment pours oil on troubled waters; the trial will follow it with a lit match. 

Forums, facebook, twitter, online comments on blogs, articles and website: if it was possible, this criminal trial will turn up the heat on the already boiling cauldron of feeling and opinion which is Scottish football. And that has its risks. Not only for the chances of these men receiving a fair trial on the evidence - which should concern us all - but also for any armchair advocates and prosecutors and defenders, who think the public would benefit from their insight into the case.

Which, perhaps, makes this a useful moment to flag up one or two important things which anyone with a keyboard and an opinion, or a broadcasting job and a desire to remain unfined and out of prision, would be well-advised to bear in mind. The trial of these men is covered by the Contempt of Court Act. Proceedings are active. And Scots judges - at least historically - have been credited with a no-nonsense attitude to applying the Act's restrictions on what you can and cannot publish. In the old days, you could count publishers on your fingers. Today, anyone with an iPhone qualifies. 

And you hear dark rumblings coming out of the Crown Office these days, that senior prosecutors in Scotland are getting tetchy - tetchy with certain well-known tabloid newspapers, flying remarkably close to the wind in their reporting of criminal cases - and tetchy with the opinonated world of folk online, breenging in a prejudicial way into active criminal cases. You hear talk of salutary examples being made, pour encouragers les autres.

Which makes the Rangers fraud case a perilous but fascinating thing for media big and small, professional and amateur. Let's put it this way. Given the issues and characters involved, if the Scottish media, and the easily agitated world of online comment, escapes the Rangers fraud case unscathed by contempt, it'll be a miracle. 

Make no mistake: the lawyers for the accused will be taking a keen and constant interest in what goes on on in the pages of the press, in blogs, on twitter, and in forums. As the criminal case is ongoing -- none of this scrutiny will leak into the public domain. The judge will deal with it in the absence of the jury, but if you fall foul of  the court's attention, you may well find yourself appearing to explain yourself, and mumbling your explanations. 

The days of court specialist reporters in the media are long behind us. This job seems likely to end up the responsibility of the sports desk. And all it will take is one careless reporter, filling in, despatched to the High Court, out of their element, rusty on the rules, to say something spontaneous and silly on the radio or on telly. Or, equally probably, it'll be wee feature piece with a glancing reference to the accused, which isn't legalled, and is thoughtlessly published, only for its potentially prejudical impact to become clear. And bingo. Contempt. 

Perhaps the journalist will refer to legal argument heard while the jury are out of the room. Perhaps they'll allude to evidence the judge has excluded. Perhaps they'll speculate on guilt or innocence of the accused, or criticise the credibility and persuasiveness of some witness or piece of evidence. Whatever it is, there'll be embarassing explanations to be made and an irate judge to placate. I hope this doesn't occur. I don't want to see anyone - professional hack or amateur commentator - hit with a prison term or a fine. But in the current environment, it seems all too probable. 

So what are the rules? Any conduct - any comment - any commentary - any tweet - which tends "to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings" is a contempt of court, "regardless of intent to do so." This catches any comments which create "a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced." Your social media reach matters, but if you have any kind of audience, don't kid yourself. You aren't a world away from STV or the Daily Record, and you can't expect the judiciary to treat you as such.

You are protected if you are offering only a "fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith." Publications "made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest" are also not treated as contempts of court "if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion". But if you breach that? The maximum penalty under the Act is two years in prison or a hefty fine. 

So don't kid yourself. Journo or punter, superfan or utterly indifferent to soccer: this isn't America. This isn't a free for all. Duly warned.

 

http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/hm-advocate-v-charles-green-craig-whyte.html?spref=tw

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree no fair hearing can be heard if people fall foul of the law by going to the media, think the EBT should have been wiped as soon s tax office mentioned that over inflated figure to the press or any figure for that matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On Saturday, September 05, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Redwhiteandblue said:

That was a civil case. No one was potentially facing prison.

Potential innocent men could be sent to jail for a crime they haven't committed if someone posts something on here that convinces a jury member (or even a Sheriff/Lord however unlikely that is) that Mr X is guilty. It also works the other way.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...