Why can&#39;t news organizations release the name of an accused person in Britain? I noticed several news articles reporting that an unnamed sports star has been arrested for a serious crime. All the articles mention that the accused could not be named &quot;for legal reasons&quot;. I could assume that the news organizations do not know the identity of the accused, but the articles are unclear and in my opinion, make it seem like they know the persons identity, but are prohibited from disclosing it. See https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/jul/05/premier-league-footballer-further-arrested-over-two-more-allegations and https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/how-police-discovered-link-between-27407720 I have never heard of this in the United States, and I was curious to know what laws or &quot;legal reasons&quot; that would prohibit a news organization from releasing the identity of a suspect if it is known. I understand that making unknown or false statements like &quot;person A is a rapist&quot; could be libelous if untrue, but just reporting that &quot;person A was arrested for a serious crime&quot; would be OK as long as this is a true fact and actually happened. What &quot;legal reasons&quot; would prevent a news organization from releasing the identity of the accused?
england-and-wales From your first link: &quot;A leading Premier League footballer arrested on suspicion of rape has been further arrested on suspicion of two incidents of rape against a different woman.&quot; As he was arrested that means there are now 'active' 'criminal proceedings' against him within the meaning of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (as amended). Therefore reporting is now subject to the 'strict liability rule': &quot;it is a contempt of court to publish anything to the public which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, even if there is no intent to cause such prejudice.&quot; Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts April 2015 (Revised May 2016), Judicial College Per the Contempt of Court Act there are four defences: s3(1) &quot;A person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule as the publisher of any matter to which that rule applies if at the time of publication (having taken all reasonable care) he does not know and has no reason to suspect that relevant proceedings are active. s3(2) &quot;A person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule as the distributor of a publication containing any such matter if at the time of distribution (having taken all reasonable care) he does not know that it contains such matter and has no reason to suspect that it is likely to do so. s4(1) &quot;a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith&quot; s5 &quot;A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.&quot; Really the publication is mitigating its legal risk at the present time and it will no doubt report the name of the footballer if he is tried or does not proceed to trial.
An accused would be arrested for the purposes of arraignment (&quot;even a scheduled arrest is still an arrest&quot;). That does not entail that the accused would be held in custody pending or during trial. Many commenters are of the view that Mr. Trump would be released under his own recognizance without bail. Reference: AP News.
united-states In some countries there are laws prohibiting publishing a person's picture without that person's consent. The US has no such general rule, and many other countries do not either. The details of such laws, where they exist, vary from country to country. In the US there are two kinds of legal action that might be used by a person to stop that person's image from being published. These are a suit for invasion of privacy, and a suit to enforce a person's right of publicity, also called a right of personality. These torts vary from state to state, and are not recognized at all in some states. Invasion of Privacy This has several variants, such as &quot;intrusion upon seclusion&quot;, and &quot;disclosure of private facts&quot;. Intrusion generally applies when someone has entered a private place, such as a dwelling, without permission, and has then taken a photograph, made an audio or video recording, or perhaps a written account, and has published or attempted to publish the image, recording or account. If and only if the publication would be &quot;highly offensive to a reasonable person&quot; then the subject or lawful occupant of the place invaded may be able to obtain money damages, or an injunction against publication. This would not apply to the fact pattern in the question, because the parents would have had a right to be in their own home, or anywhere that such baby photos are likely to have been taken. Intrusion can also apply to one who observes private activities without permission, even if no recording is made. But the &quot;highly offensive&quot; standard still applies. A &quot;private facts&quot; case generally applies when a person (or a small group, such as a family) has attempted to keep certain facts private, but some other person or business has published them (or attempted to publish them). A successful suit will in most states that allow such suits require evidence of some positive effort to keep the facts private, and that the publication would be &quot;highly offensive to a reasonable person&quot;. This might possibly apply in the fact pattern described in the question. But note that the &quot;highly offensive&quot; standard applied to both of these privacy torts. Most typical baby pictures would not be considered &quot;highly offensive&quot;, this is a fairly high bar. It would be a decision ultimately made by the jury or other finder of fact, I believe. For comparison, peeping on a couple having sex in a hotel room has been found to be highly offensive. When a person had sex with another, and had secretly arranged to record a video of the sexual encounter, and later distributed it, that was found to be highly offensive. Right of Publicity This generally prohibits using a person's, name, image or likeness, or &quot;persona&quot; to endorse or advertise anything, or for other commercial purposes, without consent. It is most often applied to unauthorized celebrity endorsements. Most US states have some form of this, but the details vary significantly. Unless the baby pictures were being used to advertise something, or in some commercial manner, this would not apply. If the parents sold baby pictures to someone who used them to advertise, say a day-care, or some baby product, this might apply, although it might be that the parents would be held to have had the right to act as the child's agent. If someone else downloaded the baby pictures from Facebook (or any other such site) and used them in ads, this might well apply. Conclusion It is unlikely in the US that a child could successfully take legal action against a parent for having posted pictures of the child, even if they were embarrassing, unless they were also &quot;highly offensive&quot;. Even then such a suit would be unusual, and might not be successful. It is more likely that a request to the parent would be successful, unless the parties are on vary bad terms. A request to the site to take down such images might work, depending on the site's terms. A DMCA takedown would not work, because the subject does not normally hold copyright to an image, the photographer initially does (unless it is a work made for hire, in which case the employer initially does). This conclusion is specific to US law. The outcome would be different in at least some other countries.
When the suspect is being arrested for this indictable only offence, are the police allowed to then arrest the suspect for the summary only offences too whilst the police are still inside of the suspect's house? YES, as long as the arresting officer suspects an offence has been committed and believes the arrest is necessary for any of the reasons given in s.24 PACE summarised here Could a suspect have those summary only offences thrown out of court? NO. There may be other reasons to offer no evidence at trial, but being arrested for a summary only offence in the circumstances described is not one of them.
Tortious publication of private facts is a doctrine that could get a person in trouble. There is no truth-defense to this tort. However, famous people have a hard time enforcing this one because newsworthiness is a defense and courts often find that facts about famous people are newsworthy (and most movies or books about people who are worth the effort of creation are about famous people). Right to Publicity is another. This basically says that people have a sort of trademark over their personality and it is analyzed much like trademark infringement. Of note is that this is a property right rather than a tort.
In the UK, no offence is committed, however many public locations cite the Data Protection Act 1998 as a reason to stop people taking pictures. DPA does not mention this topic at all, and is a red herring (however informing the location of this is unlikely to help, I have discovered) In fact, in the UK, the only laws that appear to exist cover either specific locations and properties (eg military installations) or using photography to take pictures of individuals in areas where they have an expectation of privacy. The Photographer's Rights Guide published by digitalcameraworld in 2012 is still current as far as I can see. It has this specific guidance: Photographers Rights: Taking Pictures of People in Public Are you breaking any law when you’re taking pictures of people in public? Probably not, but the position under UK law is uncertain. There are currently no general privacy laws under UK law, but the UK courts must take into account the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives everyone the right to respect for their private and family life. As this is an area of law that has been developing rapidly over the last few years, it is hard to be certain what will constitute an infringement. The key issue is whether the place the image is taken is one where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, it has been suggested that the right of privacy of a child could be infringed by publishing a photo of them with their parents in a public street. It is therefore advisable to be careful when taking photos intended for publication, even where the subject matter is in a public place. Failure to obtain a model release for the use of an image will certainly make it harder to sell the picture to stock libraries. Photographing children The same laws apply to adult and child subjects, but a child does not have the legal capacity to consent and a parent or guardian must therefore do so on their behalf. Be aware that schools, leisure centres and places where children and adults gather usually have their own photography restrictions. Although decent photos of children (see our tips for better pictures of babies, children and teenagers) taken in a public place may be fine for non-commercial use, seek permission from the child’s parents or guardians and don’t shoot covertly with a long lens. For commercial images, you’ll need to get a model release signed by the parents. Also read the section on the powers of police and security guards.
Posting such a pic and statement may give grounds for a lawsuit, but probably not Overview That is going to depend very much on the the jurisdiction, and on the specific facts. If the statement that the pictured person owes a debt is false, this may be a case of defamation, but that was explored thoroughly in Can you post a picture in your business to embarrass or defame a customer? and its answers. See FindLaw's page &quot;What Is Invasion of Privacy?&quot; for an overview of the classic privacy torts. See also this page quoting the Restatement (2nd) of Torts, § 652 See further the Wikipedia article &quot;Privacy laws of the United States&quot; which gives a history of the four torts. Note that not all US states recognize all, or indeed any, of the privacy torts. Nor do all non-US jurisdictions. In some places these torts have been recognized, or blocked, by legislation, in others by court decision. And in the US they are limited by the federal First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Right of Publicity,aka Appropriation There is, in general, no right to privacy in one's physical appearance under any of the standard privacy torts, except that if one's likeness is being used to advertise something, or imply sponsorship or approval of a commercial product, many jurisdictions protect a right of publicity (sometimes called the tort of Appropriation of Name or Likeness). But here it does not appear that the image is being used to advertise or promote or sponsor anything, so that would not apply. Intrusion upon Solitude and Seclusion The tort of Intrusion upon Solitude and Seclusion would only apply if the picture were taken on someone's private premises or somewhere else there the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Otherwise it would not apply, there is no general right to privacy for a picture taken in public. Private Facts The tort of Public Disclosure of Private Facts could possibly apply if the fact of the unpaid debt had been carefully kept secret, and if its disclosure would be highly offensie to a reasonable person. But nothing that is a matter of public record can be the subject of such a suit anywhere in the US, because under Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975) publication of facts derived from public records is protected under the first and fourteenth amendments, even against a specific state law granting protection. This will obviously not apply outside the US. False Light If the statement of the debt were true, but in some significant way misleading, the tort of False Light might apply. This is described by the Restatement of Torts (2nd) § 652E as: One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of privacy, if (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in a reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed. Note that the standard of (b) above is the same as the &quot;Actual Malice&quot; standard for defamation cases where the plaintiff is a public figure. False light cases are in many ways similer to defamation cases, and some jurisdictions have treated themn as identical tro defamation, while otrhrs do not recognize them at all. Nothing in the facts stated in the question would imply a false light claim, but more context might possibly support such a claim,. Conclusion Nothing in the question clearly indicates that any privacy-based tort would apply, but the facts are stated it a very brief way in the question. Further context and detail might clarify the answer one way or the other. This answer is largely based onunited-states law, althoguh some of it will apply elsewhere.
This is currently untested but the U.S. Supreme Court did leave the door open to allow someone to plead the 5th amendment in order to hide their identity. In Hiibel v. Nevada the U.S. Supreme Court held that the petitioner did not have a 5th amendment right to withhold his name from a questioning police officer. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Hiibel could be arrested for failing to identify himself because Nevada's statute requiring identification was narrowly tailored and was not vague. The police officer who stopped Mr. Hiibel had reasonable suspicion that a crime had occurred and Mr. Hiibel could have satisfied Nevada's statute by simply stating his name; there was no requirement to turn over any papers or other documentation. The final paragraph of the opinion speaks of the importance of the narrow scope of the disclosure requirement and then goes on and states: ...Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances...Even witnesses who plan to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege answer when their names are called to take the stand. Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We do not resolve those questions here. While the court is leaving unanswered the question of whether there are circumstances where one may refuse to identify themselves, they are making it quite clear that such a situation would be very different than the case decided in Hiibel. There is a strong hint that they would uphold Fifth Amendment privilege in the situation you posit.