Manchester police murders: Boy aged 15 arrested

[Supreme]

BBC News - Manchester police murders: Boy aged 15 arrested

A 15-year-old boy has been arrested in connection with the murders of two police officers in Greater Manchester.

Police said the boy, who was detained in Hattersley on suspicion of assisting an offender, has been bailed until 27 September.

Earlier, Dale Cregan appeared at Manchester magistrates' court, charged with the murders of PC Nicola Hughes and PC Fiona Bone.

Mr Cregan is also charged with the murders of Mark Short and David Short.

PCs Hughes and Bone died after they were called to reports of a burglary in Hattersley on Tuesday.

Mr Short and his son were murdered in separate incidents earlier this year in Clayton and Droylsden.

We can only hope that Cregan is sent down for life, although I don't think there can be much doubt that he will. Manchester is a city in mourning.

 

[Catherineanne]

We can only hope that ******* is sent down for life, although I don't think there can be much doubt that he will. Manchester is a city in mourning.

In the UK a man is innocent until proven guilty by due process, and comments such as yours before the trial has even started, let alone the verdict delivered, may well stray on the wrong side of good in relation to contempt of court.

At present this matter is sub judice, and names are best left out of it because an unbiased jury has to be found. If an unbiased jury cannot be found then a trial cannot take place and the suspect will go free.

If and when someone is found guilty, then no doubt that person will be given an appropriate sentence. And then you can use his or her name as much as you like.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

BBC News - Manchester police murders: Boy aged 15 arrested



We can only hope that Cregan is sent down for life, although I don't think there can be much doubt that he will. Manchester is a city in mourning.

I agree if he's found guilty.

 

[Bethesda]

In the UK a man is innocent until proven guilty by due process, and comments such as yours before the trial has even started, let alone the verdict delivered, may well stray on the wrong side of good in relation to contempt of court.

At present this matter is sub judice, and names are best left out of it because an unbiased jury has to be found. If an unbiased jury cannot be found then a trial cannot take place and the suspect will go free.

If and when someone is found guilty, then no doubt that person will be given an appropriate sentence. And then you can use his or her name as much as you like.

Its an interesting point about whether a person commenting on a forum can be in contempt of court. Of course a newspaper or broadcaster can - the legal issue being that whereas anything in effect can be written about a case pre-charge, once (5 minutes later) a person is charged only then do the reporting and contempt laws engage- though one might say that the combination of what is reported both pre and post charge does paint a fairly full picture, so that anyone sitting on jury in case like this would have had to been living in a cave to not know a lot about the case. Unbiased of course cuts both ways, there are a significant core of people in our cities and elsewhere) who would not help the police in any circs (one only has to look at the chorus of idiots who followed the Facebook set up in support (in effect) of Raoul Moat)

On the naming point, to mention his name is btw not contempt of court even now, as the law specifically allows the media to report the name of the defendant, the circs of the offence for which he has been charged and the time and date of future legal proceedings plus a few other details.

Finally of course whilst the legal system is posited on the presumption of innocence (from Magna Carta et al), that has never stopped people being held on remand for months and of course appearing at court with armed guards etc (all things of course that some defence lawyers claim bitterly about in terms of prejudicing the jury - with them usually hoping that they can use such in an effort to get their client off on a technicality - fortunately the Judiciary is fairly robust in this country for all its alleged faults and most such attempts go away with a well deserved flea in the ear). I agree though that we shouldn't play into the hands of those seeking to manipulate the system to achieve such ends though.

 

[Billnew]

Its an interesting point about whether a person commenting on a forum can be in contempt of court.

If that were the case, the jails across the nation would be overcrowded just from the Traybon Martin case.

In the states we have freedom of speech, sometimes it does cause problems, but we stick by it.

We have enough people in the mix to find enough people not swayed by public opinion and news coverage to cover the jury most of the time.
If not locally, they move it to another venue.

I hope justice is done.