Will Marine “A” keep his anonymity? James Michael

18 November 2013 by

 

_70999958_70992440Five Royal Marines have lodged a challenge against a ruling that they can be named following the conviction of one of them for the murder of an injured insurgent in Afghanistan.

 

Identification of ‘Marine A’ and two other Marines was prohibited by order of the court-martial which convicted Marine A of murder. At the time of the trial this order was explained in the press as necessary to protect the three defendants from physical attacks.  On 8 November 2013, Judge ­Advocate General Jeff ­Blackett ruled that the names of the defendants and those of Marines D and E, should be identified publicly. The order was not lifted after Marine A’s conviction, and it is now reported that he will oppose any lifting of the order to protect the human right to life of him and his family. A hearing before the Court Martial Appeal Court in London is expected to be held next week. Will he succeed? 

Under Strasbourg case-law the obligation on the state to protect individuals from others was confirmed by the Court in Osman v UK.  In that case the applicants complained that their husband and father had been killed by the teacher of his son. The police had been informed of the ‘attachment’ which the teacher had formed towards his pupil, and of the many encounters between the teacher and the Osman family. The family argued that they should have been protected by the police.  The Court found that the clues from the teacher’s behaviour did not indicate that he would make an attempt on the life of a member of the Osman family, and that even if the authorities had been properly informed the risk of death was not sufficiently real or immediate to justify police protection.  It therefore found no violation of the Article 2 right to life.

The case established the three criteria for a state’s duty to protect life.  Was the victim threatened in a real and immediate way?  Did the authorities know this, or should they have known it? Did they take reasonable measures to counter the risk?  A state will be held responsible only if the answer to all three questions is yes. In a series of Turkish cases the Court found the state was responsible, but that was because persons had been killed by unidentified individuals with the connivance of the security forces.

The British authorities would know if there was any threat to the life of Marine A or his family. The question would be whether continued anonymity after conviction for murder for which the Marine is in prison would be a reasonable measure in addition to other measures to protect him and his family.

The British government may not be under a human rights obligation to conceal the identity of Marine A in order to protect his life and that of his family. But if the government chooses to continue to enforce his anonymity that would almost certainly be in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights.  Several European countries have laws or codes for journalistic practice that generally prohibit the identification of defendants in criminal cases, sometimes even after conviction.  In the case of Springer v Germany the newspaper identified a man who was arrested and later convicted for possession of cocaine. The paper was fined under the German law prohibiting such identification in the interests of protecting personality rights. Springer argued successfully before the European Court of Human Rights that the conviction violated the right to receive and impart information under Article 10 because the man identified was a television actor, who had sought favourable publicity and who had starred as a police officer in a long-running series.

Marine A was not a public figure before the trial. If his anonymity is continued, anyone who is penalised for publicly identifying him would be unlikely to succeed in arguing that the penalty violates the right to receive and impart information under Article 10 or under the equivalent provision of the Human Rights Act.

I have two interests to declare. The first is that I was once a Marine myself, although of the US rather than Royal variety. The second is that I will be discussing subjects such as anonymity in court in my public lecture at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at 6.00 pm on Monday 25 November.

James Michael is Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

3 comments


  1. David Lamming says:

    If Osman v UK establishes that “A state will be held responsible only if the answer to all three questions is yes”, the third question set out in para 3 of this post should read: “Did they fail to take reasonable measures to counter the risk?”

  2. Angry Grandparent says:

    But surely as justice was dispensed, that justice is seen to have been done, therefore surely Marine A should fare the same as every other convicted criminal in the land? Isn’t public stigma and derision part of the punishment process that every convict must face?

    More and more selective and bargaining justice is creeping into our system and I do feel the state has to assert itself here, is it likely he is going to be attacked years down the line when probably the whole affair would be forgotten?

  3. ObiterJ says:

    I think that a problem with the ‘tests’ you have described is that it seems necessary for there to have been some specific threat to the individual (or his family) or, at the least, some clear evidence to show that a danger exists to the safety of the particular individual (or his family). A commonsense / practical approach would suggest that there is a strong likelihood of an attack on the individual (or his family) if he is named. This view can be borne out by the very argument put forward on behalf of the government in relation of keeping out of the public domain the full recording of the actions of the Marines. In these circumstances, Marine A should remain anonymous so that his family receive the protection which may, sadly, prove to be necessary in the present day climate.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: