Australian radio DJs will not be prosecuted over hospital hoax call

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

The two Australian radio presenters who made a hoax phone call to the London hospital where the Duchess of Cambridge was being treated will not be prosecuted.

Bringing charges against Mel Greig and Michael Christian for their "prank" last December would not be in the public interest, the Crown Prosecution Service has concluded.

The nurse who took the call at the King Edward VII hospital later took her own life, triggering an international furore. There was no evidence, however, of manslaughter, the CPS said.

Malcolm McHaffie, deputy head of special crime at the CPS, said: "As is well known, on 4 December 2012, Mel Greig and Michael Christian, both radio presenters in Australia, made a telephone call to the King Edward VII hospital in London, where the Duchess of Cambridge was receiving treatment, in which they pretended to be members of the royal family.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/01/australia-radio-djs-hospital-hoax-call

---

If they weren't radio hosts but rather regular folk they'd be held without bail.

[MADem]

1. Why would regular folk bother, though? The whole idea was to get the joke on the air.

And there was no INTENTION to commit manslaughter, and the prosecution knows that. Further, they'd have as much chance of getting those two in a British courtroom as I would becoming an astronaut. The key here is INTENT:

He added: "Having carefully reviewed the evidence currently available we have concluded that there is no evidence to support a charge of manslaughter and that although there is some evidence to warrant further investigation of offences under the Data Protection Act 1998, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003, no further investigation is required because any potential prosecution would not be in the public interest."

Among the issues taken into consideration, the CPS said, was the fact that it would not possible to extradite the radio presenters from Australia in respect of the potential communication offences.

"However misguided," McHaffie added, "the telephone call was intended as a harmless prank. The consequences in this case were very sad. We send our sincere condolences to Jacintha Saldanha's family."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/01/australia-radio-djs-hospital-hoax-call

They should have said "would not BE possible..." but no one proofreads anymore!

[dipsydoodle]

4. Proofread ?

Its the Guardian who've managed to spell their own name as Grauniad in the past.

[MADem]

10. Ha ha ha--seriously? That's hilarious! nt

[xocet]

14. Did they really do that or was it a satire by another publication?

Either way that name must be commonly known:

http://www.grauniad.co.uk

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk

yield the same result...

[dipsydoodle]

15. It was Private Eye who called them that.

I've always assumed they really did that. Their proofreading used to be abysmal.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Goody gum drops

.

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. Prosecuted for what?

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Violating patient privacy laws?

[frylock]

6. how did they do that?

I work in the healthcare industry, and i'm certified as an heathcare information tech, so I know a fair bit about our HIPAA laws. what law did these two violate?

[dipsydoodle]

8. see #7

which I posted in the wrong place in reply to you.

[dipsydoodle]

7. I wasn't aware you have the same privacy laws in the US

as we do in the UK and Europe.

[frylock]

9. i believe they are quite similar..

in any event, if anyone violated the patient's privacy, it was the nurse that disclosed the patient's information (who, incidentally, wasn't the nurse who killed herself). the proper response to these two would have ben "I'm sorry, but I cannot disclose that information to you." there are controls and protocols in place to prevent such disclosures, and they clearly were not followed by the staff.

on edit: they use the Data Protection Act for PHI in the UK.

[MADem]

11. They list the potential offenses in the article...

They can't establish INTENT for manslaughter, and the rest of the pile, which they acknowledge are a bridge too far owing to Australian nationality and unlikelihood of extradition, are

...the Data Protection Act 1998, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003

....

Bottom line, the person who gave away the information (who killed herself for reasons still unclear to us all) is the one responsible for not protecting the data. She didn't follow appropriate protocols because she was conned by a really BAD (ludicrous, in fact) imitation of the Queen.

It's a terrible shame that she killed herself, but we really never learned the full story, there.

[Ian Iam]

12. Nor should they be!

I am not a fan of the Windsors. Or any "royal" family, for that matter.

[MrSlayer]

13. The fact that it was even considered is frightening.

Prosecuted as a criminal for making a phoney phone call?

The whole thing is ridiculous.