If a suspect in a high profile case is pictured and named on the front pages of newspapers

[Bubble99]

But is later found to be totally innocent. Do they have the right to sue?

I remember Elton John and The Sun back in the 80's, but I wonder if the man in the McCann case has a similar chance of sueing, if he is uninvolved?

I've noticed that 'retractions and apologies' often seem to turn up on page 22, when the original feature was a screaming front-page headline.

The media can scar people for life, IMO. 'No smoke without fire' and all that.

I'd imagine not or every paper in the UK is probably in for a law suit.

I would guess so.

I've missed this, being abroad (though have seen tv coverage). How outragous that they've named someone. I hope it doesn't make him panic / that they've got the wrong man.

i don't think they can sue if articles are worded correctly - ie: "alleged". let's face it though, the guy's life is ruined now - trial by the british public via the media. not good for him if he is innocent or for the case as it undermines the system.

I do think it's wrong to name a suspect before they're convicted. Sways the jury surely to see all the media coverage, plus trial by media, plus - what if they're innocent. As you say - tarnished fo the rest of their life. There may be no smoke without fire but there's also innocent until proven guilty. Unless you're on the front of the Sun.

Its to do with the phrasing, atm they're just naming him as a suspect and use words like 'allegedly' and so on, not saying he's definitely done anything. Its if they actually say something like 'so & so definitely killed so & so' and then they're found not to have done, iyswim, there was a big case a few years ago when the daily mail called the Stephen Lawrence suspects murderers.

Hello Bubble!

I have decided on my verdict on him, simply because of still living with his mother!

But yes, I see what you mean. As much as the family want to keep the case at the forefront of everyone's mind, people are quite odd about it all. One thread on here in particular, if as I think they are completely uninvolved with the family has made me literally >>thud

Just so you know, that's what I can remember from my media law class from years ago, it may have changed since!

Btw, we also discussed this in media ethics - bit of an oxymoron I know ! Most of us thought that suspects shouldn't be named when they were only being questionned.

There is also the issue that this is taking place outside of Britain so they probably have different laws for the press.

I've seen so many harrowing pictures of teachers leaving courts recently with their DP/DH/DW after being cleared of 'cases' against them.

These people look haunted and beaten, IMO.

Surely there should be total anonymity for anyone, unless, or until, they are proven guilty?

more importamntly though, whether they've put "allegedly" or not, they have seriously damaged the chances of a fair trial if he is guilty as well as potentially have caused him to panic and take his fear out on the girl.

You'll probably notice in the articles that they will say something like " Of course this is all speculation" to get them off

Good point, pudding, about it being outside of the UK.

Then, I think, UK media should not be able to print details for publication or airing in the UK (won't affect the internet though, of course.)

Wasn't there a case where the enormous media coverage before the trial was judged to have prejudiced the outcome. Two sisters. I'm not sure of the details. It makes me very, very uncomfortable certainly.

yes what about colin stagg, his name will forever be linked with rachel nickell

You're right about Colin Stagg, sea.

I worked with someone who was his next door neighbour. An oddball? Yes.

But being an oddball doesn't make you a murderer.

Of course not

No anonymity for the victim though, is there? Except in rape cases.

Back in the 70's there were some terrible miscarriages of justice.

Guildford Four.

The man with SN who was locked up for 30 years for a rape and killing when he was later found to be physically unable to produce the sperm left at the scene.

I realise that the media cannot imprison people, but their namimg of people, later found to be innocent, can (often) have a similar effect.

What's also very damaging is that as well as speculating on the guilt of a suspect the press usually rakes up all sorts of information about them, eg things from their past, whether they still live with parents, lifestyle choices. Everyone has things about themselves that they don't want the whole world knowing. If suspects turn out to be innocent then they are still humiliated by the whole world knowing their private life and having an opinion about them.

Lily, I think there are now (rightly, IMO) moves to accord anonymity to both the victim and alleged perpetrator in rape cases.

I don't think suspects/the accused should be named/identified until convicted at all.

Agree, and surely this intense focus on a possible child abductor, puts the child at increased risk, if indeed she is still alive somewhere.

That would make a mockery of open justice. You'd end up with secret courts of the sort we already have in family courts - where people unjustly accused of MSbP, for instance, have had their children taken away and haven't been able to talk to their own MP about it, much less go to the media to expose what has been happening.

The media was not responsible for the Guildford Four, that was the police. The media was not responsible for Colin Stagg having his life turned over, that was the police again. They briefed the media, they provided the prosecution case. The media has played a crucial role in exposing miscarriages of justice such as wrongful imprisonment - back to the Guildford Four.

Portugal is different; no idea how their legal system views the coverage in the UK media.

Sorry, that was following on from Soupy's post, thread had moved on by the time I'd finished mine.