Civil liberty groups attack police name and shame policy
CIVIL liberties campaigners have slammed a police scheme launched in Medway this week to name and shame criminals by making details of punishments handed down by courts more widely available.
Kent police is one of the first forces in England and Wales to pump resources into making court results accessible through newspapers and websites.
But Civil Liberty, a human rights organisation, fears the system could be open to abuse by the force or individual officers who want to hide a name from public view or to manipulate successful prosecution statistics.
Police have said safeguards are in place and its rigorous procedures followed and checked.
The scheme, entitled Justice Seen, Justice Done, means police staff choose which names and offences are released, using guidelines drawn up by the government.
It will focus on the crimes of antisocial behaviour, speeding, drink driving and criminal damage. Previously, reporting the outcome of low-level cases relied on journalists being at court at the time of a trial.
Ministers and police chiefs hope the move will make the justice system more open to scrutiny.
But Steve Blake, spokesman for Civil Liberty said he believed the scheme was seriously flawed.
He said: "Readers want to know who the criminals are in their midst, where they live, what they have done and what punishment has been delivered.
"In practice I am very suspicious of police involvement in the reporting of court cases.
"Police would prefer to screen out the revenue raising cases and concentrate on the higher profile convictions for violence, theft and burglary; issues which the general public are most anxious about.
"It should be this complete list which is passed over to the media."
However, ACC Beautridge said safeguards were in place.
He said: "This has followed extensive consultation with our legal experts and is based on information supplied from the Magistrates' Courts across Kent. There is a rigorous process of scrutiny involving a number of checks but it is a matter of public record as the information we use is produced in open court.
"We will only be publicising crimes that relate to areas where the public have expressed high levels of concern - for example around criminal damage, anti social behaviour, drink-driving and the use of a mobile phone whilst driving."
5 Comments
by Ranter, Sevenoaks
Monday, March 15 2010, 10:34AM
“...........and the problem with this is?
Maybe one day so called civil liberties groups may decide to ask for the civil liberties of all citizens to leave free from the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. Why the ghastly perpetrators of crime are always the ones beenfitting from such support is beyond me. Once you commit a crime and are subsequesntly convicted you should lose all your civil rights until your sentence has been served in full.”
by Chris Thomas, GIllingham
Monday, March 15 2010, 9:32AM
“The civil liberties groups are saying all cases should be published.”
by L Joseph, Kent
Saturday, March 13 2010, 8:30PM
“In a Country where the punishment no longer fits the crime it¿s an idea. Murderers get out on bail before receiving a petty sentence, which they only serve half of for good behavior. Repeat offenders get community service or worse a worthless ASBO. Young offenders get there slate wiped clean as soon as they reach the age of consent! What is wrong with naming and shaming? If you break the Law you pretty much get away with it, which is why it¿s not working as a deterrent now, so there must be other ways to make people think before they act. In my humble opinion, as soon as you break the Law you forgo certain rights. I'm sure naming and shaming could work to a degree. After all, doesn¿t a Person commit a crime because they think they will get away with it. Knowing your crime and name will announced in public for all to see might indeed prevent some criminal actions. I'm all for it. Don't break the Law and you have nothing to worry about.”
by AG, Kent
Saturday, March 13 2010, 12:09AM
“Has anyone actually looked at the convictions that have been published so far. To be honest, they're nothing much to write home about... £33 fine for being drunk and disorderly. Wow - I feel safer already.
And can Mr. Blake explain what he means by 'revenue raising cases', and clarify exactly why the police would want to screen these out of the results?”
by R Jennings, Kent
Friday, March 12 2010, 2:48PM
“This issue is sure to provoke arguments from both sides, but I am not sure if I am being thick, but no one so far has been able to explain the civil liberties thing to me. Are supporters complaining about these names being published? Or are they saying ALL crimes should be published - which I would certainly agree with. It wasn't that long ago that courts were going to try and charge media organisations for court lists. Fortunately this silly idea was dropped.”