Select a region
One of the key principles of Jersey's legal system is that justice is seen to be done - so the workings of the court are, generally, held in public, with the media able to freely report on those proceedings unless specific circumstances dictate otherwise.
Which in certain cases means that the identity of the alleged victim is protected - but the name of the person accused of the crime is published. Is that correct? Connect columnist Advocate Olaf Blakeley explains why he believes the system needs to change.
"The article which has by far resulted in the most comment on social media, the media in general and between professionals and lay people was my article about granting anonymity to defendants until such time as they are found guilty of the crimes for which they face trial.
"In a nutshell, I made the case that no publicity should be permitted which discloses defendants’ identities until such time as they are found guilty. There could be, and should be, certain exceptions but the general rule should be a blanket ban. By adopting this approach defendants would be protected from adverse publicity, speculation and rumour. It would be similar to the presumption of their innocence until proven guilty.
"Since writing that article I have not received any comment disagreeing with my suggestion, and in fact the converse: I have been approached by all manner of people all of whom have eagerly stated they are in agreement. In fact, many have commented such a practice was “obvious” and “clearly fair.”
"For those who remain unconvinced, another example has recently presented itself which I submit provides yet more evidence for the need for protection. Recently a young man, a soon-to- be-qualified doctor, was convicted in the Magistrate’s Court of a sexual assault. Because his offence was sexual, the sentence passed by the court included his being recorded on the sexual offences register for a number of years. As a result of the conviction, and the publicity given to both it and the trial before conviction, his career went from promising to tatters. His university studies washed away in a moment. When I use the word ‘publicity’ I use it in a wide
sense. People on the street were talking about it. It was reported in the national press. It ‘wallpapered’ social media.
"When I first read about his case, and the charge against him, I scoffed. In my experience as a courtroom lawyer, I doubted a conviction of a sexual offence could be made out and, if I had been advising him, I would have advised him to plead not guilty. At law, given the facts, I could not see how a properly operating court could return a finding of guilt. It did however pronounce a guilty verdict. However, that was short-lived. The case was appealed and the Royal Court, presided over by the Bailiff, quashed that conviction. Of course, to date, in complete accordance with the law, the media properly stated that the woman victim “…cannot be named for legal reasons…”
Pictured: Advocate Olaf Blakeley says defendants’ identities should not be publicised until they are found guilty.
"I can only begin to imagine the defendant’s feeling of embarrassment and the devastation all the publicity has brought to his family. To my mind it is a clear demonstration that what I have suggested in the past about anonymity should be extended further: that anonymity should be continued until any reasonable right of appeal has either passed or been exhausted. That must be right: once the cat is out of the bag, it’s out of the bag.
"I will continue to bang on about this issue. I will continue to bang on about how Jersey should lead the way with its legal system and its reform. I would like to see the national press reporting not alleged offences but instead reporting how Jersey has stolen a march over many other legal jurisdictions. A lot of time, effort and money has been expended recently on revamping the criminal procedure law in the Island along with changes to sexual offence legislation, but this important matter seems not to have been included. What a shame. How very, very disappointing.
"I do not believe the current system is fair or just and I think our criminal legal system in this regard is broken. Whilst I do not represent the judiciary or the legislature I am an officer of the Royal Court, obliged to maintain stipulated standards and obligations - but I am independent of mind and free to express my thoughts and feelings. I do so here: for all those defendants who have been acquitted but whose lives have been wrecked by the publicity, I send out my sympathy to you and your families. I am sorry the legal system operates in the way it does, to your prejudice."
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.