The Potential Implications of Public Reporting

The Potential Implications of Public Reporting Name Institutional affiliation THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF PUBLIC REPORTING Frameworks to Equality The case of Khuja with the alias PNM came to a stop after Supreme Court made its ruling on the PNM Vs News media outlets such as Times Newspapers and many others. The media were puzzled over the rights issue regarding the controversial question of if the suspects who face charges of sexual offences, especially those who are in pre-charge, to be granted any form of anonymity from the press. In this case, the trend that seems to be emerging is one regarding the law enforcement and police service have failed in offering protection services to young vulnerable girls from sexual harassment and exploitation. Interestingly, over the past years, those people who are suspects have begun to raise concern over the harm their reputation will have to endure when the court proceedings are ongoing. This resultant effect has been seen recurring time and again as can be seen in ‘Report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press Vol 2.’ In light of this development in Khuja’s case accused of sexual offence, this concern has been taken to an entirely new level. It is because of inconsistencies in this field of study which is why this paper initiates a discussion over the legal framework that protects the rights of people’s anonymity while being charged in court.[Hohl, K., & Stanko, E. A. (2015). Complaints of rape and the criminal justice system: Fresh evidence on the attrition problem in England and Wales.] After Thames Valley Police had finished a lengthy investigation, some people were taken before the judge to be tried for conspiracy to rape and rape charges. Among other charges was child prostitution as well as child trafficking. Investigation pointed out that the nine had been planning and involving themselves in what appears to be organized prostitution and grooming very young girls at Oxford. In the group, seven men were found guilty and convicted. However, the appellant had his reputation grow in Oxford area. His case was unique as he had been taken into custody roughly the same time when the others were arrested, managed to get bailed, thus was de-arrested and was later informed that his case would remain under review. This individual did not get any charges for breaking the law, but while the trial for the other men was ongoing, while the court was contemplating on whether or not to proceed in prosecuting this individual, specific orders were issued which was protecting the privacy of this individual by denying the media houses the right to publish the information from the trial. This move was made to protect the entitlement of this individual to get a fair trial. Moments after receiving information that the police would be dropping the charges, the appellant applied to the High Court judge for obtaining an interim which was meant to protect his own reputation and privacy. His appeal was however turned down by the court of appeal.[Horvitz, E., & Mulligan, D. (2015). Data, privacy, and the greater good.] [Hohl & Stanko.] The major source of concern which differentiated the majority from the minority was the observation made by Lord Rodgers who did publish a list of names of the defendants in the media and the Guardian News in 2010. Even after doing such a thing, it is evident that people are informed of the fact that they are innocent until proven guilty by court. It is said that this can as well be applied in Fortiori. Here again people get informed that in the case where the individual is prosecuting the authorities, they are incapacitated and barred from arresting you or even bringing you to court.[Sandhu, K., & Stephenson, M. A. (2015). Layers of inequality—a human rights and equality impact assessment of the public spending cuts on black Asian and minority ethnic women in Coventry.] [Honeyford, R. (2017). Commission for Racial Equality.] What sparked discussion between the minority and majority groups was whether or not a legal presumption was made by Lord Rodgers that led to the formation of a legal presumption on the basis of understanding that, for the characters who are arrested, suspected and charged with these offences, are usually equal until the court of law gives the ruling of otherwise. In creating this argument, together with other lords, Reed, Clarke, and Lady Hale, ended up saying, “while the presumption of innocence served as a starting point, and experience suggested that the public understood the ‘difference between allegation and proof….’. Therefore, an observation which is recorded cannot be used as a legal presumption to draw a conclusion. It is certain that the conclusions which are drawn from different cases have many factors in play such as the character of the evidence, the gravity of the allegations as well as the publicity that the trial attracts. The court would be deemed to lack jurisprudence if they disregard issues relating to influence of public opinion in the lives of people which is sensitive and may end up compromising ones reputation. This is because, the case being brought before the court was one for sexual harassment of children and it will definitely raise safety concerns of children based on where the allegations give rise. The issue was hotly debated with Wilson and Lords Kerr differing with this agreement provided; the presumption generated and concluded that there was a system error done by Tugendhat J. Each of the evidential value following the presumption was questioned and a conclusion was reached that first, the public is knowledgeable and therefore understands the law perfectly, the law does not declare a person innocent or guilty who have been arrested not even yet charged. This is in contrast to the public opinion which does not find him guilty.[Young, I. M. (1989). Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal citizenship.] [Horvitz & Mulligan. 2015.] Issue of Open justice In his judgment Lord Sumption clearly indicated the importance of the ‘Inveterate rule ’ where justice which is made open for all parties to witness that the press have no option but report, quality justice may result from the value of public scrutiny. In the European Court of Human Rights, they have a similar view enshrined in their set of beliefs. However, it is important to note that this principle was formulated without absolution and therefore, it is open for the courts to decide the methods that it will use in perm...