UK vs US Procedure in Criminal Trials: A P Diddy Case Study 

As someone born in the ‘80s, Sean P Diddy Combs’ music was the soundtrack to my (much) younger years, which is probably why my interest piqued the moment the case went viral, each sensationalist headline more controversial than the last.

I want to be clear from the outset: this article is not about guilt or innocence, and it is certainly not an analysis of the prosecution/defence evidence – I am a mere spectator and criminal lawyer.

However, this is a case that exemplifies trial by media, and trial by media is not necessarily justice. Even before the trial started a few weeks ago, public perception of Diddy had shifted. How could it not? Earlier this year, media outlets across the US released video footage of Diddy allegedly assaulting his partner at the time, the complainant in this criminal case. The footage will be etched into the minds of those jurors who saw it, regardless of whether the court admitted the footage into the trial as evidence.

But Diddy isn’t on trial for that assault: the statute of limitations in the US meant that the prosecution could not bring a charge. (Rather, he has been charged with sex trafficking, transportation to engage in prostitution and racketeering.)

In the US, this is the normal course of business. The OJ Simpson TV trial is infamous, as is the story of the Menendez brothers. Both cases have been turned into separate Netflix dramas due to their controversy and, in turn, public interest. The concern across such cases is how the media in the US can impact a juror’s impartiality and, as such, a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

In my opinion, the UK (probably) does it better for the following key reasons.

The UK would put a lid on the circus

In the US, media outlets released the damning video evidence before criminal charges were filed, with open comment speculating on his guilt and other possibly prejudicial details. However, even after the very public raid of Diddy’s Los Angeles and Miami mansions and his subsequent remand into custody a few months later, the US media continued to widely publish and promote the footage.

In the UK it is highly likely that the video would have been restricted once the criminal proceedings became active, in order to avoid prejudicing a trial.  Protecting the anonymity of individuals pre charge is necessary to ensure fairness especially for those who turn out to be innocent.

The College of Policing Guidance on Relationships with the Media sets out that: “suspects should not be identified to the media (by disclosing names or other identifying information) prior to the point of charge, except where justified by clear circumstances, such as a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime, or a matter of public interest and confidence.” In addition, the Supreme Court confirmed in the case of Bloomberg LP v ZXC that individuals pre charge generally have a right to keep details about that investigation private.

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 states that once a person is arrested or charged, it becomes a criminal offence for the media to publish material that creates a “substantial risk of serious prejudice” to a fair trial. This includes news headlines and user comments, which is why comment sections under trial coverage in the UK media are often disabled.  Once Diddy had been arrested (and later charged), the recirculation of the video footage would probably have been halted and even removed.

Contempt of court is a strict liability offence meaning that the prosecution does not have to prove intent, which makes the media’s obligations more onerous in limiting prejudicial material.
Breaches can result in criminal prosecution and in turn imprisonment.

Allegations versus evidence admitted into proceedings

In the UK, when someone is on trial, the court usually won’t allow evidence about their previous convictions or arrests unless exceptions apply. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, “bad character evidence” is only admissible through specific gateways, for example, if it is relevant or has evidential significance, but it must not unfairly prejudice the defendant.   In accordance with reporting restrictions, evidence that is inadmissible must not be reported in the news until after the trial has concluded.

Contrast that with the US, where rumour and scandal often feature prominently in the media in the lead-up to a trial. In high-profile cases like Diddy’s, multiple civil claims and commentary from well-known individuals came long before criminal charges were contemplated, let alone filed. This will have undoubtedly shaped public perception (including those potentially sitting on the jury) more so than the presentation of the evidence in the trial.

Protection for complainants

Where the UK legal system does allow publicity, it also builds in safeguards, particularly for complainants in sexual offence cases. Complainants are granted lifetime anonymity so that their identities cannot be published in the media, unless they waive that right themselves. During proceedings, the court will grant special measures upon application so that witnesses may give evidence from behind a screen or via live link, to achieve best evidence.

In the Diddy trial, meanwhile, the complainant has given evidence over many days in full view of the court, all whilst eight months pregnant. As this is a federal prosecution, heard in Federal Court, TV cameras are not permitted to film, which is one saving grace, perhaps, for the complainant. Additionally, under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, the defence cannot adduce into evidence a complainant’s prior sexual history unless there is a compelling and specific reason accepted by the court.

There are many things going terribly wrong with the UK criminal justice system: it is under-resourced, poorly funded, and those most vulnerable continue to be let down. However, the legal culture in this country still prioritises the integrity of jury trials, imposes clear obligations on the media, and recognises the fragility of impartiality in high-profile cases.