LGBT people aren’t accessories for your racist conspiracies

If there is one fairly positive thing to have come out of the horrific attack on two women, Melania and Chris, on a London bus, it’s the outrage that was expressed.

Twenty or thirty years ago, many LGBT people would probably not even have felt comfortable reporting something like this to the police. In 2019 though, it was featured by many newspapers, and on the news throughout the day. The two victims have been interviewed by the BBC, including on key programmes like The World At One.

Amidst the horror at what happened, the near universal condemnation of the attack and the sympathy of the reporting is a welcome change from the cold indifference with which it would have been greeted decades ago.

Conspiracies abound

And yet, you don’t have to look to find people trying to use the attack to make points about race, or immigration, or religion, or the Muslim Mayor of London. In this case, an awful lot centred around the fact that CCTV of the incident was not released, though the police were appealing for witnesses or those with information.

Most commonly, I found plenty of people hinting, or saying outright, that the CCTV was being ‘censored’ because it would show muslims, or immigrants, as the perpetrators. Why aren’t there descriptions or names of those now arrested? That, again, is supposedly because it would be inflammatory — presumably to those who are just waiting for an excuse to attack immigrants — if the truth were revealed.

The truth, really, is far more prosaic. I run the risk, I’m sure, of being called a police stooge or something like that for setting out the facts here. I’m anything but; my own brother died following an accident in police custody, and I’m as far from an apologist for them as possible.

However, I’m also a professional journalist, and have an understanding of the law. In England, we don’t have the “perp walks” that you see on US cop shows. We have laws that can potentially restrict what is said about a case, in an effort to ensure a fair trial.

Contempt of Court

This is called Contempt of Court, and the idea is that nothing should be published, including on social media, that may prejudice the outcome of a trial, or a series of linked trials, until the verdict has been returned.

Understanding how Contempt works is key to realising why there have been no names, no photos and no CCTV released in this case. It’s not a cover up. It’s not a conspiracy to protect muslims, or immigrants. It’s a sensible precaution to ensure that when this matter comes to court, those accused will receive a fair trial.

And, unless your concern with this case is really just to grind your racist/anti-islam axe, isn’t that what you want too?

So, let’s take a look at what likely went on regarding the CCTV, and subsequent decisions, in light of the actual rules about Contempt of Court.

Follow the evidence

Like all London buses, there are lots of CCTV cameras, and the police will have requested, and gained access to, the recordings of the attack as soon as possible.

Given what we now know — that those arrested are between 15 and 18 years old — it is extremely likely that on first viewing the recordings, the police would have realised that they were dealing, or likely to be dealing, with people under the age of 18.

That would immediately tell them two things. Firstly, that there could be a real risk of contempt were CCTV to be made public. Why? Because it is an offence to name someone who is under 18, whether victim, witness or accused. It is also an offence to name someone over 18 if that could reveal the name of one of those under 18 also involved. This is why the phrase “who cannot be named for legal reasons” is familiar to many who follow the news in the UK.

The second thing the police would have worked out is that there was a good chance of getting a quick identification. People under 18 are entitled to free bus travel if they are using a ‘Zip’ Oyster photo card. These cards, obviously, are linked to a real person whose details are verified. So, if people on the CCTV looked young, there was also a very good chance that they could be quickly identified from the Oyster Zip cards they used, with no need to release the video.

Even if they weren’t using Zip cards, it would be possible to pull details from the Oyster database and find out regular travel patterns, which could make finding the suspects much simpler.

Without prejudice

So, given that CCTV and Oyster evidence would likely make it simple to arrest the suspects, there was no pressing operational need to release any video.

Indeed, doing so could make it harder for a successful prosecution. Firstly, it might simply alert the suspects that the police were closing in. Secondly, it would create a real risk of people being named on social media, thus leading to contempt — and possibly to their defence lawyers later being able to claim they hadn’t received a fair trial.

And, to reassure everyone, it’s a fair trial and a just outcome we want here, isn’t it? Not a chance to rant about immigrants on social media?

“Why are the police still appealing for witnesses, then?” Is one retort I’ve had to this line of argument, and that too is straightforward. Witnesses who come forward will be able to corroborate CCTV evidence, and also indicate if they heard words during the attack that indicated it was related to sexual orientation. The CCTV does not, as far as I know, record audio. Witnesses could provide the necessary confirmation to ensure that the crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime (ie, aggravated by sexuality) rather than just a standard assault.

The same considerations would be given to releasing the CCTV here. It might create a risk of identifying someone under 18, and given the massive publicity around the case, it wouldn’t really be necessary for finding witnesses.

More on contempt

“Aha,” some people have said to me, “they haven’t been charged yet, only arrested,” so why can’t we have names or pictures? Contempt of Court does not apply.

Yes it does. The rules about contempt apply to “active proceedings” and proceedings in a case become active when one of these things happens:

• An arrest
• A warrant is issued for an arrest
• A summons or indictment is issued
• Someone is charged

So, from the moment of arrest, it is not permissible to name anyone who is under 18, or anyone over 18 if that will lead to the identification of a minor. Releasing CCTV, or providing descriptions, could do that, and so correctly, in my view, the video has not been released.

It is also not permitted to give information that could lead to identification of someone who should be anonymous, nor to pre-judge their guilt or innocence, to refer to any previous convictions, or to evidence not given in court.

All of this applies not just to the professional media like newspapers, TV and radio, but also to individuals discussing the case on social media.

So, if you really do care about justice for LGBT people — regardless of your views on immigration and multiculturalism in London — please stop the conspiracy theories.

There is no grand plan to hush up what happened. There is simply a desire to follow English law, and ensure that the suspects can be treated as fairly as possible if the matter comes to court. CCTV is released by the police when it’s useful, and won’t prejudice a case. If it’s unlikely to help, then there’s no automatic right to view it, and little is served by turning an awful attack into “crime porn.”

If you’d rather make up stories about this attack to fit your own version of what you think London is like in 2019, then I’ll kindly ask you to desist. And to ponder whether it’s really the rights of LGBT victims you’re interested in.

I was beaten up once in Amsterdam; that alone was a horrible enough experience. To hear others who weren’t even there, later asserting to their friends that I’d been beaten up by immigrants did not make me feel any better. It sickened me.

The evidence will come out in the end, in court. Until then, please don’t use LGBT victims as a skeleton over which to drape your own prejudices.