WiganWarriorsFans.com

This thread began with a rumour that he may not now be going to Oz.

I think it is now heading into very unsafe territory. Be careful what you post, you have no idea who reads these threads!

I reitterate what KW says, THINK before anybody posts any names. Personally, I will not be doing so and I would advise others to do the same.

i'm spartacus wrote:

DaveO wrote:

i'm spartacus wrote: How then does this court case shed any light on GH's circumstances?

Criminal trials rarely involve just the accused and the alleged victim do they.

Other people become involved either directly as witnesses or indirectly as part of peoples statements.

So who is on trial then?

I won't be posting any names as CPW suggested. If anything comes out of relevance to the club we will all know soon enough.

Probably run its course this thread, I'd say a MOD should lock it.

29wes28 wrote:Probably run its course this thread, I'd say a MOD should lock it.

Why? Although it got diverted the rumour Hock isn't going to Parra is still current isn't it?

I will not say any more on the subject to avoid any further issues as we clearly shouldnt discuss a specific legal case.

Don't close the thread for fear I might say anything further.

East Stand Faithful wrote:I will not say any more on the subject to avoid any further issues as we clearly shouldnt discuss a specific legal case.

Don't close the thread for fear I might say anything further.

Actually that isn't true at all; our legal system is defined as an 'open justice' system. Open justice helps to ensure that trials are properly conducted. It puts pressure on witnesses to tell the truth. It can result in new witnesses coming forward.It provides public scrutiny of the trial process, maintains the public’s confidence in the administration of justice and makes inaccurate and uninformed comment about proceedings less likely.

Open court proceedings and the publicity given to criminal trials are vital to the deterrent purpose behind criminal justice. This is why the Courts have public galleries, which should you choose to, you can go and sit in and watch the proceedings.

There are very limited circumstances where there are reporting restrictions, and even where they are in place, it tends to give anonymity to victims and witnesses, not to the accused.

There are automatic reporting restrictions that apply to the reporting of committal proceedings in the magistrates’ courts which prevent media reports of the proceedings. However, the media can publish specified facts such as the names, addresses, ages, occupations of the accused, the charges they face, identity of the court, magistrates, legal representatives, whether or not bail and legal aid have been granted, date and place of any adjournment and whether they have been committed for trial.

If people don't want to say who it is for fear of some sort of reprisal, I can understand that, but generally there are no sanctions that could apply in respect of naming someone who is subject of a criminal trial.

Spartacus last sentence is the reason

cpwigan wrote:Spartacus last sentence is the reason

That is fair enough cp

CPW is correct but also I was under the impression the following AUP taken from RLfans would apply to this forum also?

By registering an account you agree to follow this policy (the AUP), which applies to all sites on the RLFANS network, and includes private messages and emails sent via the site as well as postings made in public areas.


"1. Prohibited content

1.3. Matter that are sub judice cannot be discussed.
* Under British law, when a matter becomes sub judice - from the moment a charge is filed or hearing arranged and until a resolution is reached - publishers are restricted under criminal penalty to what can be published so that they don’t prejudice a case.
* The definition of published content includes web sites and postings on message boards."