Discussion:
"Worldwide" ban on reporting Jon Venables' identity...
Add Reply
g***@walkerlincoln.co.uk
2017-12-05 07:16:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
From the Aussie Telegraph, it would appear that someone, or some people, have identified JV.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bulger-killers-identity-protection-may-have-been-breached/news-story/c6e2e2c4d983fad4a22e53f4580781bb

But just what is a "worldwide ban" and how would it be enforced in, say, the US? Or China?.......Kenya.....or any other place?
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-12-05 10:22:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@walkerlincoln.co.uk
From the Aussie Telegraph, it would appear that someone, or some people, have identified JV.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bulger-killers-identity-protection-may-have-been-breached/news-story/c6e2e2c4d983fad4a22e53f4580781bb
But just what is a "worldwide ban" and how would it be enforced in, say, the US? Or China?.......Kenya.....or any other place?
Just as in the same way as any other case of contempt of court would be approached. 'Agents' do not chase them round the world. However, attempts will be made to identify them and Facebook is not as anonymous as those who use it would like to think it is.

Having been identified, a warrant will be issued and the first time they enter the jurisdiction of the court (i.e. the UK it's dependencies or territories) that are vulnerable to being detained and delivered to the court concerned which will then deal with them.

They will never know whether or not a warrant has been issued in their name and so their only safe strategy would be to stay out of the jurisdiction of the court for ever. Quite a sacrifice in many cases.

I don't believe extradition treaties can usually be used to effect the capture of warrant dodgers. What do you think would happen to Assagne is he set foot outside the Ecuadorean Embassy? Would he be allowed to go on his way? Hardly!
He has some answering to do to the court that bailed him!
True Blue
2017-12-05 21:37:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by g***@walkerlincoln.co.uk
From the Aussie Telegraph, it would appear that someone, or some people, have identified JV.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bulger-killers-identity-protection-may-have-been-breached/news-story/c6e2e2c4d983fad4a22e53f4580781bb
But just what is a "worldwide ban" and how would it be enforced in, say, the US? Or China?.......Kenya.....or any other place?
Just as in the same way as any other case of contempt of court would be approached. 'Agents' do not chase them round the world. However, attempts will be made to identify them and Facebook is not as anonymous as those who use it would like to think it is.
Having been identified, a warrant will be issued and the first time they enter the jurisdiction of the court (i.e. the UK it's dependencies or territories) that are vulnerable to being detained and delivered to the court concerned which will then deal with them.
They will never know whether or not a warrant has been issued in their name and so their only safe strategy would be to stay out of the jurisdiction of the court for ever. Quite a sacrifice in many cases.
So, an Italian living in Italy recognises JV as a man living in a village he's just visited in Austria. He photographs JV and uploads JV's photo to FB, declaring who he is and what he's done. The Italian visits London and is identified by the British authorities. Take it from here, Mel.....
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-12-06 14:38:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by True Blue
So, an Italian living in Italy recognises JV as a man living in a village he's just visited in Austria. He photographs JV and uploads JV's photo to FB, declaring who he is and what he's done. The Italian visits London and is identified by the British authorities. Take it from here, Mel.....
Very hypothetical!

It's very simple however, if a court issues a ruling protecting the anonymity of anyone then everyone without exception within the area of jurisdiction of that court must comply with it. Should the court hear of anyone who has breached the ruling again within its jurisdiction then the judge will issue a warrant that will require the attendance of the alleged offender (yes he is an offender) before the court to be held to account.

The warrant will remain active at least in theory for all time. The subject of that warrant can be arrested and detained at any time (again within the court's jurisdiction) for the purpose of being taken before the issuing court.

I am pretty sure that the existence of an active warrant (other than an arrest warrant - something totally different) is insufficient to trigger the issue of an extradition warrant.
True Blue
2017-12-06 19:04:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by True Blue
So, an Italian living in Italy recognises JV as a man living in a village he's just visited in Austria. He photographs JV and uploads JV's photo to FB, declaring who he is and what he's done. The Italian visits London and is identified by the British authorities. Take it from here, Mel.....
Very hypothetical!
It's very simple however, if a court issues a ruling protecting the anonymity of anyone then everyone without exception within the area of jurisdiction of that court must comply with it. Should the court hear of anyone who has breached the ruling again within its jurisdiction then the judge will issue a warrant that will require the attendance of the alleged offender (yes he is an offender) before the court to be held to account.
The warrant will remain active at least in theory for all time. The subject of that warrant can be arrested and detained at any time (again within the court's jurisdiction) for the purpose of being taken before the issuing court.
I am pretty sure that the existence of an active warrant (other than an arrest warrant - something totally different) is insufficient to trigger the issue of an extradition warrant.
So, it would seem that "worldwide" means nothing of the sort?

Loading...