motherofdaughters
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2019
- Messages
- 345
- Reaction score
- 1,241
It is because he’s already being named so he’s not under protection for being vulnerable and all court cases are a matter of public record?
Finger still crossedYes I have, it's very very strange. I just hope it's a case of 'no news is big news'?
Maybe a police conference afterwards? I just think he’ll be charged soon re LibbyYes I have, it's very very strange. I just hope it's a case of 'no news is big news'?
Surely it wouldn’t prevent a report on it though? He’s been named so he’s not been deemed vulnerable.Maybe a police conference afterwards? I just think he’ll be charged soon re Libby
I think he still has to be present to hear the sentence in court before release. Unless it's specifically a closed court I'd assume normal rules apply. Reporting restrictions are to ensure a fair trail but he's now convicted so the fair trial part has been satisfied.Surely it wouldn’t prevent a report on it though? He’s been named so he’s not been deemed vulnerable.
Court cases are a matter of public record. I can’t see how this would affect any further cases, there’s a possibility there just aren’t any reporters there but I feel that’s unlikely.
Only thing I can think of is he’s been released owing to time served and they’ve allowed him Grace to get away? Doesn’t explain why they’ve pulled reports though.
HDM link has gone. National press reports of yesterday still there.
Why pull something that was clearly in the public domain yesterday from local press? plus I can't see any media outlet removing reporters from a sentencing hearing on a case they'd been following for months. Especially given interest in the summations
Could it be that is just because it's been adjourned till 2? Tho they've reported on every little detail of previous appearances. I hope this is something positive
I can still see the posts in HDM - Every sick crime committed by twisted pervert Pawel Relowicz
Could it be as simple as they’ve Mis quoted something and been asked to remove it?The recaps are still there on the HDM site itself, but the links (and subsequent comments) have gone from social media - which is unusual.
But could the rest be reported? I was under the impression that reporting restrictions were there to ensure a fair trial. After conviction a lot of stuff would enter the public domain. Including sentence and rationale for the sentence?Hi everyone, I am sure reporters are there and just can’t report for legal reasons. Psych reports are part of medical record for example and judges may instruct that they are not reported.
Ah ignore my last post. So it's possible it's not to compromise a further trail. Nothing else seems relevantReporting restrictions not just for fair trial, can be to protect minors who are victims and to not compromise any other/further legal action
Is that from the Hull Live FB page? It may still be on Hull Live Courts Facebook - they can disable comments on the courts page but not main live pageThe recaps are still there on the HDM site itself, but the links (and subsequent comments) have gone from social media - which is unusual.
The recaps are still there on the HDM site itself, but the links (and subsequent comments) have gone from social media - which is unusual.
Could it be as simple as they’ve Mis quoted something and been asked to remove it?
But could the rest be reported? I was under the impression that reporting restrictions were there to ensure a fair trial. After conviction a lot of stuff would enter the public domain. Including sentence and rationale for the sentence?