Naming of suspects is unlawful

[ProfessorSlocombe]

A case which might have repercussions for rape and sexual assault cases.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/3541.html

A Libyan man arrested in connection with the Manchester Arena bombing has been awarded £83,000 in damages after his details were published online. Alaedeen Sicri, 26, was held but later released without charge following the attack in 2017 which killed 22 people.

He was not identified by Greater Manchester Police but the MailOnline published his name, images and other details after his arrest on 29 May.

The defendant did not report the claimant's release. The Article remained online unamended until February 2018, when it was taken down following receipt of a letter of claim from the claimant's solicitors. The claims advanced at that time were not conceded and, on 21 December 2018, the claimant brought this action claiming damages for breach of confidence and misuse of private information. His claim includes claims for aggravated damages - to compensate for increased hurt to feelings - and for special damages, to compensate for financial loss.

Misuse of private information is part of the "confidentiality genus", but breach of confidence and misuse of private information are separate and distinct wrongs. At this trial, however, it has been common ground that it is unnecessary to examine their differences. The case can be decided by reference to the latter tort alone, the contours of which have been shaped by Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention.

In ZXC CA at [82] the Court of Appeal held that, in law:

 <span class="italic">"... those who have simply come under suspicion by an organ of the state have, in general, a reasonable and objectively founded expectation of privacy in relation to that fact and an expressed basis for that suspicion."</span>

This has been the norm since the cliff richard case. Suspects have a right to privacy until the moment they are charged. But they don’t have a right to privacy once they are charged. It’s also trickier to report on rape suspects because naming them could lead to the identification of the victim which isn’t allowed.

There was a man in Bristol who was accused of murder and had his name, address and biographical details broadcast all over the national press for several weeks. He was never charged, because someone else had done it and was eventually caught, tried and found guilty, but his life was made hellish during that several weeks. (His actual crime seems to have been that he'd been employed as a teacher at a local public school.)

The argument for publishing the names of rape/assault suspects is that other victims may then come forward; I am not sure how well it actually works, because it seems possible that some of those who come forward turn out never to have been anywhere near the suspect and a lot of police time is wasted, but I can see that it might be a good thing if other women who'd been maltreated by the same man were given reason to think they might now be listened to.