Why judge was right to impose reporting restriction on asylum seeker trial

WHATEVER political views you have, whatever walk of life you are from, your skin colour, race, religion, or whether you are rich or poor, everyone accused of having committed a crime is entitled to a fair trial.

- By MARTIN NAYLOR

That is one of the cornerstones of our legal system and, indeed, our society as a whole.

This week, the issue raised its head after an asylum seeker was found guilty of raping a vulnerable teenager in a park in Sutton-in-Ashfield.

The trial of Sheraz Malik had to be moved away from Nottingham following social media comments made by Reform MP for Ashfield Lee Anderson, at the time the 28-year-old defendant was charged last summer.

The politician chose to air his views to his followers on the case months ahead of a trial date even being set, something which had the potential to derail the trial and also potentially see him hauled before a judge for “contempt of court” proceedings.

It also saw people take to the streets in the town to protest against illegal immigration. And all of this later sparked two things inside the courtroom.

Firstly, a decision was made to move the trial away from the city as Judge Nirmal Shant KC felt too many potential jurors in Nottinghamshire would be aware of the publicity the charge had garnered.

Secondly, she also imposed a temporary reporting restriction on the press so that Malik’s immigration status as an asylum seeker could not be published until after the trial.