Is the Government GUILTY of sub judice re the riots?

[Joe9T]

Is the Government GUILTY of sub judice in the wake of the rioters being arrested, charged, warrented or summoned to court, by getting involved or making comment on the courts process, regarding the severity of the sentencings the Courts should dish out, and the media then reporting on such comments?

 

In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment", means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court. The term may be used synonymously with "the present case" or "the case at bar" by some lawyers.

 

In England and Wales, Ireland,New Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan, Canada, Sri Lanka, and Israel it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.

 

In English law, the term was correctly used to describe material which would prejudice court proceedings by publication before 1981. Sub judice is now irrelevant to journalists because of the introduction of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Under Section 2 of the Act, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there's an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons.

[donkey]

I don't know if they are guilty of sub judice, but they certainly seem to be applying a completely different attitude to these defendants than they did to the defendants in the NoW case, when they couldn't emphasise enough that it is 'innocent until proven guilty.'

[Joe9T]

Well, i would have thought that if you attempt to sway the court in any way, that is tantamount to sub judice.

[HeadingNorth]

Have any politicans commented on specific, not-yet-heard cases? All I've come across is general statements.

[Joe9T]

They have not commented on specific cases (apart from the fact that all the cases relate to the riots) and also apart from pressurising the courts to be tough, which is not there position to do so. That is in my opinion trying to sway the courts decision making.

[Joe9T]

Have any politicans commented on specific, not-yet-heard cases? All I've come across is general statements.

 

Under Section 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there's an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons.

[Joe9T]

And the media report on what the Goverment have urged Courts to do. Which is sub judice or contempt of court, as it is attempting to sway the Courts to take a severe course of action than would normally be taken by the court.

[andygardener]

No they're not. The government haven't said person a or person b must get 4 years etc.

 

Our elected representatives have rightly conveyed the disgust of the british people at the rioters and our desire they suffer suitable punishment for their crimes.

 

I worry about anyone whose concern is that the scum who laid waste to communities didn't get the expected slap on the wrist rather than the famillies of those murdered in the riots, the people made homeless by the riots and the businesses and employees put on the dole by the riots. They are the victims, not the amoral arsonist looting scum who the guardianistas are now claiming are the "real victims".

[HeadingNorth]

They have not commented on specific cases

 

Then sub judice law cannot apply.

[Joe9T]

Then sub judice law cannot apply.

 

But they (the Government) have urged the Courts to be tough, which is putting presuure on the court system, which already knows what sentencing powers it already has. It does not need a Government telling them what sentences should be ie tough. It's up to the courts to decide and not the Government or anyone for that matter, however bad the riots were.