He refused to pay for the taxi apparently

Anyone know who his solicitors are going to be?

There will always be someone wanting a high profile case

Merseyside Police have issued a warning after an “incorrect” name for the alleged Southport attacker was widely circulated online.

Inaccurate posts by social media sleuths about the identity of the perpetrator have received millions of views and engagements.

A 17-year-old boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, remains in custody accused of murder and attempted murder following the incident.

Sunder Katwala, director of the thinktank British Future, said a fake news channel seemed to have invented a fake name and run a false story.

Some of those “sharing that false information” include actor Laurence Fox and former kickboxer Andrew Tate, Mr Katwala said, posting on X.

Mr Katwala said the “pace” with which misinformation was spreading after the incident “presents important challenges to social media platforms and ultimately for policymakers as regulators and lawmakers if platforms cannot respond.”

The exact reason why he should be named.

Exactly. The person named is not the one who did it and could be in danger.

Two 16 year olds were named in the murder of Brianna Ghey just last year

after they were found guilty and the case was over

Exactly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

They were named after the court case though? they were referred to as Girl X and Boy Y during the trial as I recall, and it was only after the verdict that the judge ruled their names could be put in the public domain

see

Two teenagers blaming each other for the “frenzied” murder of Brianna Ghey in a Warrington park were “in it together”, jurors have been told before starting their deliberations.

The 16-year-old was stabbed 28 times in her head, neck, chest and back in Linear Park, Culcheth, a village near Warrington, Cheshire, on the afternoon of 11 February this year.

Two teenagers, identified only as girl X and boy Y, have been on trial for her murder for over three weeks and each blames the other for the murder.

A jury at Manchester crown court was warned on Tuesday not to be tempted to “try to find an explanation” for the killing.

In her closing speech, the prosecuting KC Deanna Heer told jurors: “You may find it hard to fathom how two children could behave the way they did. The temptation might be to try and find an explanation for what they did and why. They are only children after all.
“But in a criminal case the prosecution doesn’t have to prove why a crime is committed, only that it has been. In murder cases in particular we sometimes never know why a crime is committed … Don’t be tempted to try and work out what they would do what they did.”

She told the jury they do not have to decide who actually stabbed Brianna in order to find both children guilty of murder.


Heer said they “may well conclude” that the boy inflicted at least some of the stab wounds using a hunting knife he bought for £13.50 on a skiing holiday six weeks before the killing. Brianna’s blood was found on his coat and shoes, as well as on the knife, the court has heard.

Meanwhile, Girl X’s barrister, Richard Pratt KC told the jury: “There’s not even so much as a microscopically observable droplet of blood on Girl X’s jacket or her shoes. There’s not a cell of Girl X’s DNA on anything incriminating in this case.”

But Heer reminded the jury that a forensic scientist, Jane Roughley, had told the court it was “entirely possible that Girl X had stabbed Brianna at least once, either before her blood started to flow or after it had started to flow.”

The prosecutor also suggested that Girl X may have used Y as her “hitman”, reminding them that she had once referred to her co-accused as a Tesco John Wick, a budget version of the assassin played by Keanu Reeves in the Hollywood film franchise. “You may think that’s why she referred to Y in that way, because he was her hitman,” Heer said.

Heer told the jury that the teenagers were the only suspects, adding: “The evidence suggests that they both participated in Brianna’s murder in the following ways: firstly, they both encouraged the other to kill Brianna. Secondly they both contributed to a plan to kill Brianna. Thirdly, they both played a part in carrying out the plan. And fourthly, after they had killed her they both took steps to conceal and cover up their guilt.”

She added: “The evidence suggests from first to last these two defendants were in it together.”

The trial continues.

That bloke from the airport


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

…and that might be the way with this also, but we won’t know until after the sentencing if the judge appeals for him to be named…doesn’t it have to be decided by another court…?…

I note he is now available...

ah yes you are correct

As i understand it the name could be published by a website/news source outside the UK?

No, i think it is simply up to the judge appointed to the case. If he decides it's in the public interest for people to know who he is then, that's it, otherwise it remains withheld. I think there will be immense pressure to name him, however, the judge will be concerned that the guy gets a proper trial that can't be appealed in the future

I really dont know what the law is or if it can prejudice a case ...

yes, the legal system can't cope if the persons name is in the public domain. Also, mp's can name the person at any time in the HoC

…(…if I recall…)…I’m not sure if it was Brianna’s killers or another case but the name wasn’t revealed for public interest …it was because with the nature of social media and those with knowledge of cases posting on social media etc…?…the judge felt that it had become an inevitable thing and pointless to try to uphold…

…for information…

Anonymity for youths in law

In terms of criminal law, when youths appear in court, they are often granted anonymity in a range of settings to protect them.

There is an automatic ban on the identification of children in youth court proceedings, and if a youth appears in the crown court - as they would for a case like this - the judge can impose reporting restrictions ensuring their anonymity under Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

But while the suspect in the Southport stabbing will most likely be granted anonymity if he is charged and then tried in Crown Court, he could - legally - be named at this point, says journalist and media law expert David Banks.

This is because Section 44 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 - which gives anonymity from the moment a criminal investigation begins - hasn't yet been activated, says Banks, creating a "loophole" that could be used, but often isn't.

"Successive governments haven't activated Section 44, which would make everything a whole lot simpler. Then you would never have any question over this issue."

Equally, if the boy turns 18, he will not automatically be entitled to anonymity - so could well be named - especially if his 18th birthday is imminent and happens before a case comes to court, should he be charged, said Banks.


Another reason to not name a 17-year-old suspect is the IPSO Editors' Code of Practice, which says: "Editors should avoid naming children who are arrested, unless their identity is already in the public domain."

It adds: "Sometimes, there are exceptions to clauses of the Code, if a journalist is able to show that there is a public interest. If a journalist wants to use a public interest exception and the issue is about a child, they must show an even greater public interest than for an adult."

Banks added: "There's been this loophole in terms of the law. However, the editor's code of practice says that even where you legally can, you shouldn't name a youth involved in criminal proceedings."

But he said there have been situations in the past, such as the murder of Leeds teacher Ann Maguire in 2014 at the hands of 15-year-old Will Cornick, where youths have been named, because there was believed to be an "overwhelming public interest" in identifying them.

"Very often this gets questioned in extraordinary and horrific events," he said. "Someone, an editor, might think this is such an horrific event that it is in the public interest to identify whoever it is. That's what they would argue if a complaint was made to IPSO - whether IPSO would agree would be another matter."

…full article…

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/southport-...151023900.html

Merseyside Police have now deleted their pride post after Turning Point UK pointed out
that they should be spending less time virtue signalling and more time policing.

Britain needs police not cult flag wavers. :rolleyes:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTqfl27W...jpg&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTqfl2mW...jpg&name=small

…I do recall Ann Maguire being killed by Will Cornick…but I’m not sure if the public knew who he was before the trial and conviction…Im not sure if that’s what the article is inferring because it was deemed to be of ‘public interest’….

Well if this isnt in the public interest to name the killer then I dont think there will ever be one that is!

He can be named when hes 18, right?

For all we know, he could be 18 next week

…this reads to me that there is a ‘loophole’ …a minor can’t be named during a trial but can be named before the trial begins…?…


‘On his arrest, Cornick was detained at Wetherby Young Offenders Institution near Leeds, but due to concerns for his safety he was transferred to HM Prison Hindley near Wigan.[14]

Due to an anomaly in British law, although it was illegal to name or identify Cornick during his trial due to him being a minor, it was legal to name him before the trial began. The tabloid newspaper The Sun named him the day following the murder.’

When does the guy appear in court, i bet it's today