I’m concerned about the way the arrest of Tom Stephens is being handled by the BBC (I haven’t seen any news on the other side) and by the press. True, it’s only an offence to publish anything that creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice to criminal proceedings. There are no active proceedings here, so it seems there is no question of actual contempt of court. And nothing the BBC has published has been prejudicial in substance – it hasn’t given the impression that he is or must be guilty.

But it’s far from clear that the maglie calcio poco prezzo background interview he gave will be admissible in evidence, and that in itself worries me since it means many potential jurors will unecessarily have an impression of him from material that may not be before them in court. Not contempt, perhaps – but not good enough, either. And I’m worried about a drip-drip approach here: the more he is talked about, the more difficult it will be, if he is charged, for his subsequent trial to be fair. One day, some notorious suspect will go free because of the behaviour of the media, and the mob will throw their stones at editors instead of at police vans. Let’s not go there.

Oh, and by the way – I note Tom Stephens was interviewed first as a witness, then only subsequently under caution as a suspect. The thing I said in an earlier post was possible, though not probable, in Tony Blair’s case.

2017-03-18T03:17:39+00:00Tags: |