Recent events show the risks of naming uncharged suspects
Following the horrific murder of Ashling Murphy in Ireland earlier this month, actions by those investigating the event highlight the dangers of naming suspects at such early stages in investigations, writes Stuart Matthews.
Even the most fair-minded among us might admit that when they read the words "a suspect is in custody" following the commission of a heinous murder, "suspect" might as well read "murderer". Those fair-minded and honest might confess that they are hoping for a photographic glimpse of the killer.
It was no surprise to read that the innocent person recently arrested for the murder of poor Ashling Murphy feels his life has been ruined. If you think you've had a bad day, just stop for a moment and think about how truly awful his experience must have been. One moment he was living his life, the next he was arrested, handcuffed, detained, and interrogated for two days whilst being identified and vilified on social media. Spat out of a truly terrible ordeal and into the bright lights of nightmarish infamy.
Describing this experience in vague terms is one thing; actually, living it is life changing. Each moment of that process is the worst moment of your life.
A colleague of mine represented the first person arrested following the appalling death of PC Andrew Harper. In the days following his charge we received numerous threats, many truly vile. My colleague gave a press conference urging the police to "follow every single line of enquiry to ensure justice is done". Soon after charges were quietly dropped. No song and dance. No email apologies from those who were previously threatening. People lost interest in him immediately.
Most contact with the criminal justice system is vicarious; we read about other people. We don't get arrested. It is hard to truly empathize with those arrested or charged for crimes they didn't commit because it is so far outside our frame of reference. We know it must be awful, but we move on quickly to concentrate on the guilty. Similarly, we know that something should protect these poor wrongly accused people from our premature judgment, but, like properly funding our criminal justice system, it doesn't apply to us and so we don't need to think too much about it nor worry much about its absence.
Anonymity for suspects crops up now and again when someone clearly innocent is vilified. It reared its head in 2010 following the wrongful arrest in Joanna Yeates' case, leading soon after to calls by MP and former Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland for those who named suspects to face punishment. Former Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform Frances Crook called for "arrest anonymity". As Home Secretary, Theresa May wrote to the police stressing that those arrested should not normally be named unless charged, writing "I believe that there should be a right to anonymity at arrest, but I know that there will be circumstances in which the public interest means that an arrested suspect should be named"
The French offer better protection in their Civil Code, which creates a right to respect for the presumption of innocence. Those suspected but uncharged can obtain injunctions, seek damages and orders requiring the issuing of a correction, if publicly represented as guilty of acts being criminally investigated. Sadly, in our country there seems to be little appetite to protect those wrongfully accused from the choking fire-less smoke of trial by media.
