AddThis SmartLayers

Regional daily defies police to publish serial paedophile’s photo

A regional daily has defended its decision to publish the photograph of a “highly dangerous” serial paedophile in defiance of a police request.

The Leicester Mercury ran the photo of Ajay Jetha, who will serve a minimum of 11 years in jail after he carried out a “terrifying and humiliating” sexual assault on a boy under the age of 13 on a secluded Leicester footpath.

Leicestershire Police had asked local media outlets not to publish any photographs of Jetha in line with the wishes of his victim’s family.

After the Mercury ignored this decision and published a photo of him on its front page on Thursday, pictured below, the force issued a statement on its website saying it was “extremely disappointed” with the newspaper’s decision.

MErc Jetha

But, in an editorial explaining its decision, the Mercury wrote: “We had been requested not to use them by Leicestershire Police, the force who put him behind bars for life.

“They felt the images could hinder the rehabilitation of his latest victim, a schoolboy mercilessly attacked on a secluded footpath in Leicester.

“It is an argument we considered long and hard before choosing to go ahead. Today, we face criticism for our actions. We stand by the decision. Here’s why.

“Ajay Jetha is a predator. A man whose only goal in life is to satisfy his own sexual appetite. A man who cares not about being arrested, nor the consequences of his crimes. A man declared by a judge to be ‘highly dangerous’ and likely to remain so for the rest of his life. Someone who shows no desire to change.”

“He was considered a ‘high risk’ by probation officers in Leicester, who warned he would ‘take a child off the streets at any time’. He did. And there’s overwhelming evidence to suggest he will try again. Wherever and whenever he can. It’s a matter of time.

“You have a right to know what he looks like. To know the face of a paedophile so unbalanced he used graffiti to seek out young children for sex.

“Even the Association of Chief Police Officers acknowledges that publication of pictures like the ones we used could ‘assist in deterring potential criminals, prevent subsequent crime and encourage other victims and witnesses to come forward’.

“On those grounds we made our decision. For that, in some quarters, we are damned. So be it.”

Jetha was previously jailed for nine years in 2004 for kidnap, false imprisonment and the sexual assault of a 12-year-old boy in London.

The Mercury and other local media outlets had agreed with Leicestershire Police to keep certain details of the attack private, an agreement which the newspaper has kept to.

The statement on the force’s website states: “The family made it very plain to officers that they would be extremely distressed if any media outlet published photographs of the man who attacked their son. We relayed that request to media outlets but regrettably the Mercury chose to publish pictures it sourced from the offender’s social media footprint.

“Yesterday (Thursday), having seen the Mercury’s coverage, the Chief Constable wrote a letter to the editor in which he set out his disappointment that the paper had seemingly ignored the family’s request. To date, the editor has not published our letter.

“Every year we release, often through the media, scores of photographs of people who are convicted of serious offences. We do so in accordance with clear guidelines, and can only do so if the release of such photographs is legitimate, proportionate and necessary.

“In reaching a decision, we must also – quite rightly – take account of the wishes of the victim and consider the impact the release of a photograph could have on them – in this case, a young boy.

“Due to the exceptional circumstances of this case, and the strength of the victim and family’s feelings, we took the decision not to release photographs of the offender and relayed the family’s request, and our decision, to local journalists.

“We all have a social responsibility, and that includes supporting victims of crime. We find it extremely disappointing that the city’s newspaper, which has a core role to play in our community, chose to publish these photographs despite being told of the enormous distress their actions would cause to the young boy and to his family.”

18 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • April 11, 2016 at 7:51 am
    Permalink

    I hope the chief constable also wrote to the BBC. Jetha was pictured in several local TV news bulletins.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(23)
  • April 11, 2016 at 8:57 am
    Permalink

    I’ve no problem with the police passing on the family’s request. I do have a problem with them apparently thinking this should dictate the Mercury’s response. Leicestershire Police, in common with most other forces, appear to want to control the media and the message.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(44)
  • April 11, 2016 at 9:21 am
    Permalink

    “We stand by the decision. Here’s why. We’re grubbing around for readers anywhere we can and we thought this would mean we’d flog extra copies. Never mind the victims.”

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(11)
  • April 11, 2016 at 10:07 am
    Permalink

    Come on Sideshow, show some news sense. This isn’t a picture of a victim, it’s of a vicious criminal. It’s news and it’s public interest.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(29)
  • April 11, 2016 at 10:17 am
    Permalink

    Perhaps the police should be spending their time looking into how a convicted sex offender who had been in prison – and therefore was known to the system – was able to carry out this heinous crime on its patch.
    You never know, if the monster’s face had been plastered over the media last time, they might have known to keep an eye on him…

    Well done the Mercury, doing a better job for public safety than the police or the justice system (let’s face it, he should have still been in jail for the first offence !)

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(17)
  • April 11, 2016 at 10:18 am
    Permalink

    Intrigued that HTFP chose the ‘paper defies police’ header and intro, as opposed to ‘paper defies victim’s family’.
    As the bloke is inside for the next 11 years, at least, difficult to understand why his appearance matters – in terms of the ‘public interest’ or the Mercury’s news values.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)
  • April 11, 2016 at 10:27 am
    Permalink

    The thing is, the criminal is behind bars for 11 years so unlikely to be causing a problem for a while. Does seem to smack of sensationalism.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(3)
  • April 11, 2016 at 10:34 am
    Permalink

    The right decision and brilliantly written while we are it.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(10)
  • April 11, 2016 at 10:36 am
    Permalink

    I do wonder what the victims of every other sex crime in Leicestershire make of this particular case being given different treatment by the county’s force.
    I worry this case may have set a dangerous precedent for the police to follow – what happens the next time someone is attacked?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(11)
  • April 11, 2016 at 10:37 am
    Permalink

    A tough call – but the right one – surely the trauma of seeing this man’s face on the Mercury’s front page cannot begin to compare with the trauma caused by the crime itself…

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(10)
  • April 11, 2016 at 10:40 am
    Permalink

    If we rely on PC Plod for our moral guidance and/or intellectual instruction on matters like this then we are doomed. Doomed, I tell you. Luckily this paper was having none of it.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(11)
  • April 11, 2016 at 10:46 am
    Permalink

    I would normally go along with the wishes of a victim’s family.
    But this wicked individual deserves to have his face known by as many people as possible for the good of the rest of the local population.
    A tricky one though for the Mercury.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(14)
  • April 11, 2016 at 10:51 am
    Permalink

    “Having arrested and charged the offender, we did everything we could to safeguard the boy and his family in an attempt to minimise any further distress. This included urging all media outlets not to publish or broadcast the details of the attack on him. All media outlets, including the Mercury, agreed to that request, for which the family were – and remain – very grateful.”

    “The family also made it very plain to officers that they would be extremely distressed if any media outlet published photographs of the man who attacked their son. We relayed that request to media outlets but regrettably the Mercury chose to publish pictures it sourced from the offender’s social media footprint.”

    Basically did the usual facebook trawl, found a pic and used it.

    ‘news sense’ indeed.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(2)
  • April 11, 2016 at 11:29 am
    Permalink

    Sex stories sell newspapers…it’s all about money.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(3)
  • April 11, 2016 at 11:35 am
    Permalink

    If the offender were a family member, the situation might be different. But it sounds very much like he snatched a boy off the street.

    Of course the image of a vicious, dangerous criminal should be shown. It cannot harm the boy any more than what has already happened will have done, and could save another in future.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(9)
  • April 11, 2016 at 12:15 pm
    Permalink

    While I understand the victim of this animal not wanting to see the photo of his attacker leering at him from the front cover of a newspaper and I totally understand that position, my view is that the public should know what he looks like if, God forbid, he was ever released from prison again.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(11)
  • April 11, 2016 at 12:59 pm
    Permalink

    A request is just that – a request. It is not an order so the Mercury has done nothing wrong in my view and I think is fully justified in its reasons for publishing it.

    However, does it have to be the front page picture? Without knowing what else was around that is impossible to answer but perhaps as a gesture of goodwill it could have been used inside instead?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(8)
  • April 12, 2016 at 4:13 pm
    Permalink

    Well done the Mercury. Perhaps you can remind your readers of this vile being’s achievements when he’s due to come up for parole. They say people have long memories, but they may need reminding about Mr Jetha’s record when he seeks an early release.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)