Big day in court for GWR

[Darandio]

That's fine, but perhaps the forum mods should reconsider its stance on republishing sensitive personal information. Just because the media have gotten hold of it and published it, doesn't mean its right. Everyone has a right to privacy unless they've committed really serious offences where it's in the public interest to know. Ticketing offences are not in the same league

So you aren't aware that hundreds of local newspapers around the country have been doing exactly this for decades, no matter how minor the offence?

Usually there would be a section reserved in the paper called 'In The Dock' or 'From The Courts' etc etc.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Just because the media have gotten hold of it and published it, doesn't mean its right.

The media haven't gotten hold of it, they have been given it by the courts. It's freely available public information. To try and censor the media would be far worse, in my opinion, than printing freely available information.

 

[MikeWh]

Personally, I am uncomfortable with this. The full address might not be listed but it still identifies the individuals concerned. It's called Information Governance which I practice carefully in my line of work.

Unless the sensitive information is actually in the public domain, the media should not be re-publishing it, otherwise this would be illegal.

I would just use "good practice" on a public forum and redact the addresses - especially if the people concerned have previously come onto the Disputes Forum for advice

Whilst I understand your concerns given your role, this really is a non-problem. Court proceedings are public (excluding sensitive proceedings which ticketing offences are not) and anyone can report on the outcomes. Local papers have reported on courts since way back when. Absolutely no-one is going to get into trouble for re-publishing an article that is already publicly available.

The forum requires excerpts of links to be copied for accessibility reasons. It also guards against the original content being deleted and the thread not making sense further down the line. Reports of court proceedings are not going to be deleted so there is no issue with their contents being reproduced.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

So you aren't aware that hundreds of local newspapers around the country have been doing exactly this for decades, no matter how minor the offence?

Local papers - i.e. the information is local.

This is a national/international forum.

 

[LondonExile]

The publishing of addresses is in part to avoid "collateral damage" with those with the same name.

John Smith, 37 has been convicted of the following crimes identifies one person (as intended), but probably also matches a number of other people who have not been convicted.

By providing the address it is far far more likely to only name the person involved.

 

[Darandio]

Local papers - i.e. the information is local.

This is a national/international forum.

And for the last 20+ years the same information has been on the local newspaper websites, both viewable nationally and internationally.

Your concerns really are a non-starter.

 

[MikeWh]

Local papers - i.e. the information is local.

This is a national/international forum.

Local papers which are on the internet and can be seen from next door to New Zealand.

 

[skyhigh]

Local papers - i.e. the information is local.

This is a national/international forum.

So what? The local paper has put the information they were given on the World Wide Web. The information is freely available, to anyone, anywhere, and would be regardless of what is posted on this forum.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Local papers - i.e. the information is local.

This is a national/international forum.

National papers report court cases too! It's just there is usually greater local interest and nationals don't have the column inches to spare

 

[Bluejays]

The publishing of addresses is in part to avoid "collateral damage" with those with the same name.

John Smith, 37 has been convicted of the following crimes identifies one person (as intended), but probably also matches a number of other people who have not been convicted.

By providing the address it is far far more likely to only name the person involved.

I hadn't thought of that, actually makes a lot more sense now.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Just looks like a normal trip to Court by the TOC , I went once with our Prosecutions Manager the list was quite lenghty, again nobody appeared in person.

 

[WesternLancer]

That's fine, but perhaps the forum mods should reconsider its stance on republishing sensitive personal information. Just because the media have gotten hold of it and published it, doesn't mean its right. Everyone has a right to privacy unless they've committed really serious offences where it's in the public interest to know. Ticketing offences are not in the same league

In my line of work, if I passed on sensitive information to those who have no need to know it, I would be promptly sacked. I don't believe the media should be allowed to either, but that's OT here

AFAIK there is no cut off in what is published by the court (who would decide what is 'really serious' - I suspect it would take legislation, then open to wholly endless judicial review on a case by case basis - although in any case I think a minor's details can not be published in the same way so law makers have ruled on that aspect).

I can not see that re-publishing information, that is legally permitted to be published in the first place - and that is the important point - is an issue really.

What I suspect you are talking about, ref your own line of work, is publishing information that you or your firm hold, to those who have no right or need to know it. And that may well be an infringement of GDPR.

But say you work in a shop, say that shop is in Reading, and those people had been convicted of shoplifting, you would be fine to photocopy that Reading Chronicle Article and pin it to the staff noticeboard - that may even help prevent your shop being a victim of theft. But that is not the same as pinning up the address details of people who hold shop loyalty cards in the staff room eg so you can offer 'better customer service' or some such, details which only authorised staff in the shop should have access to.

 

[Haywain]

It's a stupid rule

It's there for the benefit of people who use screenreaders, I believe, and so make the forum more accessible which really isn't stupid.

 

[dmncf]

Just for my interest, how do local papers get the information about the outcome of court cases? Do they attend the actual courtroom, or is it posted physically in the court building, or posted online?

 

[Deafdoggie]

Just for my interest, how do local papers get the information about the outcome of court cases? Do they attend the actual courtroom, or is it posted physically in the court building, or posted online?

All of the above. They used to have a court reporter who'd sit in court all day reporting on cases. Now, only major cases get a reporter, everything else they get given by the court.

 

[Llanigraham]

Personally, I am uncomfortable with this. The full address might not be listed but it still identifies the individuals concerned. It's called Information Governance which I practice carefully in my line of work.

Unless the sensitive information is actually in the public domain, the media should not be re-publishing it, otherwise this would be illegal.

I would just use "good practice" on a public forum and redact the addresses - especially if the people concerned have previously come onto the Disputes Forum for advice

The reports published by the Courts will have the full address of the accused, and I have seen many reports in the South Wales press that published those full details, at least here it is only the road listed. No-one here or in the Press has done anything wrong.

 

[Egg Centric]

I also don't think it's right to publish these peoples' names and addresses in this forum. Firstly, some of them may be impersonation. Secondly, these offences will be spent in a year. Is anyone going to commit to wiping this thread then? I'm aware that there's no legal obligation on us to not report, but generally speaking respectable (and even non-respectable) news organisations don't mention spent convictions.

Thirdly, the list of names and addresses adds nothing. It's not interesting. A bunch of fare evaders were fined £220. Whoopy do.

 

[221129]

Secondly, these offences will be spent in a year.

However the information remains public knowledge. Spent or not.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Looks like most didn't turn up, as the fine is a exactly at 50% of the assumed weekly earnings.

I also don't think it's right to publish these peoples' names and addresses in this forum. Firstly, some of them may be impersonation. Secondly, these offences will be spent in a year. Is anyone going to commit to wiping this thread then? I'm aware that there's no legal obligation on us to not report, but generally speaking respectable (and even non-respectable) news organisations don't mention spent convictions.

Thirdly, the list of names and addresses adds nothing. It's not interesting. A bunch of fare evaders were fined £220. Whoopy do.

Can't do the time, don't commit the crime as the old saying goes.

As far as the court is concerned, the finding of guilt and conviction rules out impersonation. That person is legally guilty now regardless. If they want to dispute that later, they're free to appeal or file a statutory declaration.

Very strange attitudes from some forum members on this thread! I can remember the names and addresses being stuck around train stations in poster frames!

Still happens after a look on Google images, where there's an image showing just that. Although I've never heard of "Metro".

 

[Haywain]

Still happens after a look on Google images, where there's an image showing just that. Although I've never heard of "Metro".

That’s the organisation known as Nexus, or the Tyne & Wear Metro.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Looks like most turned up, as the fine is 50% of the assumed weekly earnings

I'm assuming a typo here - surely most didn't turn up, so weekly earnings were assumed? Otherwise, please explain your reasoning.

 

[nanstallon]

I doubt it's a change in policy from GWR. This is likely to be people that have been written to by GWR but have not engaged with them. They most likely think the problem will go away if they don't reply.


The information is already in the public domain.

If you commit a criminal offence, then the community ought to know about it.

 

[thebigcheese]

Court lists from the magistrates, setting out the names, addresses and charges, can be sent upon request to accredited media. The results of case can also be sent out, and this is what is often printed by local newspapers. As mentioned above the full name, age and line of address is to prevent libelling someone who shares the same name.

It's infact very rare for journalists to visit the courts. "Only two London courts get 'proper' news coverage"

No details apart from first and last names are sent out for the Crown Courts. And no results either. Daily courts lists can be seen on courtserve.net but you have to register for free.

One of the most well known authorities for the principle of Open Justice is that of Scott v Scott [1913]:

The hearing of a case in public may be, and often is, no doubt, painful, humiliating, or deterrent both to parties and witnesses, and in many cases, especially those of a criminal nature, the details may be so indecent as to tend to injure public morals, but all this is tolerated and endured, because it is felt that in public trial is to found, on the whole, the best security for the pure, impartial, and efficient administration of justice, the best means for winning for it public confidence and respect.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I'm assuming a typo here - surely most didn't turn up, so weekly earnings were assumed? Otherwise, please explain your reasoning.

Didn't turn up indeed. For some reason the rest of the sentence disappeared too!

 

[AlterEgo]

I also don't think it's right to publish these peoples' names and addresses in this forum. Firstly, some of them may be impersonation. Secondly, these offences will be spent in a year. Is anyone going to commit to wiping this thread then? I'm aware that there's no legal obligation on us to not report, but generally speaking respectable (and even non-respectable) news organisations don't mention spent convictions.

Thirdly, the list of names and addresses adds nothing. It's not interesting. A bunch of fare evaders were fined £220. Whoopy do.

You reckon the paper will delete its article too?

 

[2192]

"Train fare dodger told to pay fine 416 times more than the £1.60 ticket fee" -- of course if he had made the journey more than 416 times ticketless he would still be in profit. A program on London Transport's fare dodgers showed that many had been doing it for years.

 

[James H]

It is vital that justice is administered in public.

Just think for a minute how sinister it could be if the courts could pass judgment and sentence people in secret.

A court case is not a personal matter. It is intrinsically public.

 

[WesternLancer]

It was of note to me that some of the people on the list (I googled 2 more or less at random - albeit with less common names) quickly came up with other court records of more serious nature from other occasions - 1 prostitution and extortion, another apprehended with weapon (knuckle duster I think). In my view it's part of the picture that this sort of thing is known about. Fare dodging will perhaps be a standard mode of transport for some of those listed I suspect.

 

[Haywain]

It was of note to me that some of the people on the list (I googled 2 more or less at random - albeit with less common names) quickly came up with other court records of more serious nature from other occasions - 1 prostitution and extortion, another apprehended with weapon (knuckle duster I think). In my view it's part of the picture that this sort of thing is known about. Fare dodging will perhaps be a standard mode of transport for some of those listed I suspect.

The reason that the police are often present when revenue operations are taking place is that many of those who can't be bothered to pay for their travel are often committing or wanted for other offences and are easily picked up.

 

[WesternLancer]

The reason that the police are often present when revenue operations are taking place is that many of those who can't be bothered to pay for their travel are often committing or wanted for other offences and are easily picked up.

Yes, good point. I recall an ex police officer saying to me once that it was often the case that people committing minor infringements often seemed to be on the 'wanted' list for more serious matters. You might think you would not want to attract unwanted attention but it seems that is not always well thought through by the individuals concerned.