“The player cannot be named for legal reasons”

[KhalliWhalli]

I have been reading the news reports about the Everton player who was arrested. Obviously we should stay well away from speculating who it might be. I don’t know any of them anyway.

But I’m curious as to what the reasons could be for not naming him. Does anybody know - generally speaking - why the police and courts sometimes do this?

Usually to protect the identity of a minor.

I thought he had been named? I saw this morning (not Delph!!)

This player has been openly named since yesterday surely?

He hasn't been named in UK media, as far as I'm aware.

He has been named in Icelandic media, and was when his home was searched too.

I have no insider knowledge; but given the charges he has been arrested for, I'd presume he's not being named to protect the identities of the minors involved.

It was really wrong of them to give his age and that narrowed it down significantly. And said he was married. Which meant the wrong person got named on line.

I thought it was a legal requirement that they can’t name you until they’ve actually charged you with an offence?

Nobody is ever named officially until they are formally charged.

Sometimes it's made on the eve of an appearance in the magistrates court, but never before there is a settled decision to charge.

@WimpoleHat

I thought it was a legal requirement that they can’t name you until they’ve actually charged you with an offence?

They generally can't unless there is a public interest and the Police can't unless it is for policing purposes. I don't think either would apply here as in view of who it is the, with the money he has, the press wouldn't risk it under the public interest pro viso. If he's not charged or found not guilty he'd sue the arse off them like Cliff Richard's did.

I think by giving such a detailed description, '31 Everton player' it was really unfair as it has led to a player being incorrectly suspected. They should either have named the player or given a vague description ie international Premier league player.

Twitter however has been naming the player before the story broke, I don't understand why they don't name people if Twitter is unable to be policed.

But if it was - for example - underage sex with a random fan, could they name him then? As that would not identify the victim as it could be anybody.

It’s to protect a miner but also for his own safety.

If it turns out that it’s not true then he will be victimised regardless. Mud sticks and all that.

He shouldn’t be named until he is charged, and whoever has leaked to social media should be arrested.

He's been named in Europe/worldwide news, so it's pointless not being named in the uk. It's there when you google him, on his Wikipedia too.

His poor wife is pregnant.

It's not right to name people until at least charged, unproven and possibly false allegations are not exactly unheard of!

I know nothing about football and nothing about this case.

But by googling using information posted here, it's one click to find the story in international press.

This is the problem with UK law - we can't control what happens overseas. So you have cases in the UK being freely reported elsewhere, and anyone with an internet connection can read the details. Similar to the "super injunction" cases, it usually just takes a couple of minutes on Twitter to find out who's involved.

@AlternativePerspective

It’s to protect a miner but also for his own safety.

If it turns out that it’s not true then he will be victimised regardless. Mud sticks and all that.

He shouldn’t be named until he is charged, and whoever has leaked to social media should be arrested.

But someone completely innocent has been reported as being involved, and as you say mud sticks.

There seems to be a paradox with these injunctions I've never fully worked out.

Obviously the Press Association know who it is and all members/editors will know the person and that they must not publish it.

Us as regular people do not have visibility of this therefore how can it be illegal?

If Twitter automatically blocked a celebrity name because of an injunction it would just lead to a series of guesses being made until the one that didn't post was found.

Has there been an injunction?

Or are the British press sticking to reporting what has been officially released, possibly warned not to prejudice ongoing investigations?

How to deal with the standards in English law about reporting in the Internet age (when international publishing is so readily available) is a difficuitnquestion with no easy answer. Because I really don't think the solution can ever be 'if it's doing the rounds on Twitter it's ok to publish everywhere'

Has there been an injunction?

I bet there has.

Pointless except in the sense it upholds an important legal principle.

It's unlikely to be an injunction taken out by the player - that doesn't work for criminal behaviour.

It's more likely to try and make sure the accused can have a fair trial.

Has there been an injunction?

I bet there has.

On what basis are you betting there has? I can't see any grounds for one being granted.

@Orf1abc unless the victim was known to the accused and identifiable, I can’t see any other reason to withhold his identity.