« Koala Bears - The New AGW Poster Child | Main | A Gray Wedding Day »

Kafka's Trial

Judge bans media from telling if trial went ahead | The Times

A judge has banned the media from reporting whether or not a criminal court has even sat under a “very rare” secrecy order. The far-reaching order comes amid concerns over the use of super-injunctions in civil privacy cases and will fuel public debate about justice being done behind closed doors.
It appears to fly in the face of the tradition that criminal cases must be heard in public in the interests of justice. Such restrictions are highly unusual and would only be expected in extreme circumstances.
Reporting any details about the order — even the fact that the hearing has taken place — could lead to journalists being jailed or fined for contempt of court.
In the latest case, the defendant is identified on public court papers only by a single initial, with no details of the charge or charges that he or she faces.
Judges often impose orders banning the reporting of matters heard in criminal courts to prevent prejudicing juries in future trials, to protect witnesses or in the national interest. But the name of defendants, the charges they face and the dates of any future hearing are made available to the media to enable the evidence and legal argument to be reported when the order is lifted. The media is also given the information so that it can seek to challenge the restrictions.
The latest order — which has drawn comparisons with Franz Kafka’s 1925 novel The Trial in which a bank clerk, Josef K, is unexpectedly arrested and tried for a crime that is not revealed to him or the reader — also prevents the reporting of whether a hearing has taken place, the name of the lawyers involved if a hearing has taken place and any details of the order itself. The Times has ensured that it has not identified the geographical area of the hearing, the court, the judge, the case name or the identities of the lawyers involved.

It was meant to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

Comments

I would like to be able to say 'well spotted', but cannot since the webpage is hidden behind the times paywall.

These Judges have appropriated too much power to themselves under the grotesque Human Rights crap installed under Labour, and as many others have already flouted at least one or more of their loony restrictions, I see no reason why we should not attempt to breach this little idea.

"But the name of defendants, the charges they face and the dates of any future hearing are made available to the media to enable the evidence and legal argument to be reported when the order is lifted. The media is also given the information so that it can seek to challenge the restrictions."

So the media is made party to privileged information not available to the public? On what basis - the "public good"?

And not only that, the media actually colludes with the authorities to withhold information from the public?

THIS is where we need leaks - not for a couple hundred thousand US State Department internal emails.

It's time this crap was sat on good and proper.

Justice is not justice unless seen to be justice.

Parliament needs to get a grip, and soon.

Post a comment