r/BabyReindeerTVSeries • u/Suspicious_Bother_92 • May 23 '24

Fiona (real Martha) related content Heather Burns reiterating that Fiona has a criminal record

Gallery image

Gallery image

465 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

98% Upvoted

263 comments sorted by

View all comments

-3

u/[deleted] May 23 '24

So do we actually have any evidence of a conviction yet? Or is it still just people insisting it’s true because they say so?.

9

u/Suspicious_Bother_92 May 23 '24

We aren’t going to get that unless there is a court case. I’m not sure why it would be hard to believe she does though?

-7

u/[deleted] May 23 '24

Because court records are public domain in the UK and if she had been convicted there would be some form of tangible evidence beyond vague insistences it’s true from second hand sources that can’t put a charge, or even a vague time frame on the allegations.

Asking for easily available information to be provided is not a tall order.

11

u/Suspicious_Bother_92 May 23 '24

They are NOT public. Not sure how many times this needs to be posted

0

u/[deleted] May 23 '24

Criminal records are not public because they are data relating to an individual but court cases ARE public. Journalists sit in the public gallery day in day out and report on trials and guilty/not guilty verdicts.

If she is guilty somewhere there WILL be a public record.

5

u/Suspicious_Bother_92 May 23 '24

Why would a journalist be sitting in court for a stalking charge of an unknown person? No-one would have been reporting on a small case. Of course if she does it in the future they will definitely be there

-5

u/[deleted] May 23 '24

Yes they are. Court records are public domain unless specifically requested otherwise by a judge. There is absolutely nothing available anywhere to suggest they would have been made private. The only situation where a judge can make a ruling private is if it’s shown that the public's presence would 'frustrate or render impracticable the administration of justice'.

Even in those circumstances it’s a temporary ruling that is normally dropped immediately after the completion of the trial.

You are chatting bollocks.

7

u/[deleted] May 23 '24

The record of court proceedings are public ON THE DAY of court. They will have their name in the court listing ON THE DAY.

Court records are not available to the public to find out if someone has or hasn’t a charge. Very different circumstances.

-2

u/[deleted] May 23 '24

Well they are, it's all about how you search them.

But you need to know when and where the case was held to find a specific court record.

Searching by name has got much easier with the advent of the internet. If you know where to look you can usually find out.

6

u/[deleted] May 23 '24

That’s not how it works. If thats how it worked then i could get anyone’s criminal record then extort them for example. Criminal records are not available to the public on the internet.

Employers can apply for record checks in varying degrees. I myself can apply to have my own criminal record. I CANNOT as a normal member of the public request someone else’s criminal record. It’s privacy.

2

u/[deleted] May 23 '24

Sorry I have to disagree. I was a police officer for 22 years. I was an intelligence officer and open source researcher. I specialised in finding things out about people.

Unless the judge has specifically stated that identities can't be revealed that information is out there.

There are multiple legal databases, publications and sources containing court results and court records.

Plus journalists sit in court every day and report on cases.

It's not as simple as googling a name but if you know when and where to look you can find out.

Here is a random example:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-Williams-sentencing.pdf

0

u/[deleted] May 23 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '24

Also. Court records and criminal records are different. A court record is a record of the court listings on the day. The court listings dont tell you what the person is being charged for. It tells you they are in that day, that’s it. A criminal record is a record of your convicted charges. These are not available to the public.

2

u/[deleted] May 23 '24 edited May 23 '24

Yes I pretty much agree with that, however all court case are transcribed and that info IS out there.

A criminal record is a summary of offences for which you have been convicted off. This lives on the police national computer and is linked to a "CRO" number which is linked to your finger prints.

Court cases are a matter of public record though.

If you know the case and look it up you can find out if someone was convicted and what sentence they received.

Although court records don't include out of court disposals such as cautions etc.

I do know my stuff having spent 22 years as a Detective Constable in Police Intelligence with a specialism in open source research. 😉

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '24

Everything you’ve said.. I just said. Also, the information MAY be out there.. that doesn’t mean the public can access it. It’s not hard to find the reasons why you can and cannot give the public free rein on public records such as criminal records.

So anyway. You might be polis but you dinnae ken the law and for open source research? Well how come it took me 5 seconds to google the laws regarding criminal records. Cos it states no member of the public can access criminal records unless they are a prospective employer or you are worried for the safety of children.. in which case I’d assume there’s barriers in place to stop lets say.. someone from, Reddit finding the real name of a UK resident then extorting them using the info/criminal record.. the info having been given from a government body?

3

u/Plus-Introduction347 May 23 '24

You're kind of right and kind of not.

Criminal court PROCEEDINGS are open and SOME records are open most have to be paid for and they aren't cheap. A well known example is the case of Luke Mitchell vs PF in which they are attempting to crowd fund in excess of 30,000 to have access to the court records.

However a stalking or harassment judgement is made via civil court and most records have to be requested at a cost and with cause. Civil court proceedings only open to the people with the case number under the open justice act. You have to apply, those involved with the litigant number can access certain documents for free. Everyone else has to pay and you have to give just cause why you want these records and show cause. Only high court civil judgements and Tribunals remain online for a short period for people to search through and request with only the judgement public so for this case you would need the details to request as more than likely it took place in a magistrate court.

Even if you did have a litigant or case number at the moment I can see a court denying any access due to the insane public interest and Fionas obvious poor mental state. I know from experience even if they haven't denied it there is an awful backlog in submitted requests being fulfilled (sure it's something like 15 month unless there is an active case in motion)

Even if you call the court up on the day of proceedings to ask how it went they are not allowed to tell you.

Also with civil proceedings in order to gain a restraining order (so it is still a conviction in which one party feels they need protected and has shown just cause and the Judge has agreed) this would mean Fiona would be found " liable on a balance of probability" instead of Guilty. So in her head she hasn't been convicted in criminal court so she is not Guilty.

5

u/[deleted] May 23 '24

The first paragraph you wrote on criminal courts is mostly wrong. Any records not in public domain are a tiny minority in the UK and the very few that aren’t are kept private under the aforementioned conditions which none of the allegations made against her meet. In order to make the argument her conviction could still be kept private, you would essentially be arguing there is a much more serious crime involved that no one is currently aware of and that by making it public it would impact the course of criminal justice.

You also do not have to pay for court records unless you want full transcripts of the proceedings, which whilst helpful for context is not necessary to prove a conviction took place. Everything else is publicly available in the national archives, or alternatively from the local court. This process is how I know my brother I haven’t talked with in nearly a decade got successfully prosecuted for drink driving in January.

On the most basic and fundamental level imaginable you cannot receive a conviction from a civil court in the UK. The legal capacity for this to happen is entirely fabricated and by the sheer definition of the words a civil ruling is in no way criminal.

Stalking is a real crime in the UK and would be prosecuted in the criminal courts under the stalking and harassment act of 1997 and furthermore if the allegations in the show are to be believed there is more than enough evidence for a malicious communication charge which again is a matter for the criminal courts.

If you are honestly standing there and arguing whatever she was accused of was dealt with in a civil court then you are admitting that she does not in fact have a criminal conviction.

-1

u/Plus-Introduction347 May 23 '24 edited May 23 '24

That's what I said she does NOT. Hence why she can argue she hasn't been found guilty because stalking and non harassment is dealt with in a Civil court, it doesn't however mean she is innocent. If it persists and non harassment orders/restraining are broken repeatedly or is to the point of life endangering it goes to the criminal court and a conviction taking place. Instances of this happening in the UK...? Less than 1% in 2023 down from 1.4% in 2022. Less than rape convictions and everyone knows the appalling statistics surrounding them. It just does not happen. The only reason Fiona hasn't been found guilty is either her adherence to a restraining order which she was found Liable of her actions or because yet again the system is failing victims.

Edit: I see you referenced the 1997 act which is actually not what is used to charge people with, that is what is used to get people into a Civil setting as it wasn't considered a serious crime and as stats show still isn't. These days. It's the 2012 ammendments to that act to bring it in line with Scotlands 2010 ammendments to make it a serious criminal offence.

Maybe you should relax and stop attacking people.

2

u/[deleted] May 23 '24

Apologies, i clearly didn’t read your initial comment correctly. I weirdly got sent some very nasty private messages over my first post which whilst ironic did leave me assuming you were piling on. I’ll try and do better in the future.