Media Law

Reporting in court

There are three basic legal principles:

1. People are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
2. The public has the right to know about trials taking place, unless there is a very good reason for the trial not to be public (eg protecting the victim, rape, child abuse).
3. The right for a jury to come to a conclusion based on evidence.

There are three key figures in criminal court:

1. Jury - a group of citizens who decide whether or not a person is innocent or guilty based on the evidence presented in court.
2. Barrister - it is the barristers job to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that their client is innocent.
3. Judge - keeps the court orderly and advises the jury on legal matters.

Contempt of Court Act 1981

The contempt of court act was introduced to make make sure that individuals and organizations respect the power of the court. For example, if a person was to disobey an order which had been given to them in court then they would be in contempt of court. The contempt of court act banned anyone, including journalists from doing the following things:

• Reporting on any views expressed by anyone on the jury
• Publishing anything which might disrupt a fair trial
• Interfering with the course of justice
• Breaching a court order

The only things which a journalist is allowed to report on are the following:

• Name and age
• Address
• Occupation
• Any charges made
• The date and place of a Crown Court hearing
• Name of counsel
• Any bail and legal conditions

When reporting on Crown Court cases, a journalist is protected against libel with qualified privilege. Qualified privilege allows a journalist to report on a case as long as their report is, fast, fair and accurate. If the report is not fast, accurate or fair then the journalist is no longer protected by qualified privilege. (see Media Law notes 19/10/10)

My visit to the law court in Winchester

Today I went to the law court in Winchester. I was very impressed with the court building itself, although this maybe because I come from a small island will a tiny court building! Upon entering the building, everyone has to pass a security guard and walk through a metal detector. This is because it is illegal to being any weapons or recording/photographic equipment into the court. I immediately noticed how quiet the building was, as how respectful everyone was. People only talked in whispers and everyone was dressed very smartly. I found this quite unnerving because I was worried that I might inadvertently do something too noisy or disrespectful!

I watched parts of two different cases from the public gallery, both of which were murder trials.

The first case I watched was about a murder, and was in its third trial. I was able to see the doctor explain the injuries of the victim in great detail. I found some of what he was saying to be quite surprising and found myself rather amazed at how much he was able to learn about the attack simply from studying the body. For example, he was able to tell the court that the deceased had not tried to defend themself because there were no wounds to the hands or arms. I find it fascinating that we are able to learn so much about the event from the smallest clues.

In this trial they also presented the murder weapons. Again, I found this to be both shocking and intriguing. While I was alarmed at the size of the weapons, I found that I was pleased I had seen them because it helped me to piece together what had happened, even though I knew very little about the case.

The second case I watched was the first trial of the murder case and the witnesses were being questioned.

The first witness was a man who was dressed casually, and talking very aggressively to the lawyer questioning him. I thought this to be very disrespectful given the circumstances, and immediately I was reminded of the statement that the smartly dressed doctor had given in the previous case. When the doctor was giving answers I took them to be complete fact, purely because they were being told by a doctor, and I, like most of society, believe doctors to be honourable and trustworthy people. Conversely, I found myself doubting what the witness in the second trial was saying simply based on the fact that he was scruffy and rude.

Clearly this is very wrong of me to be so stereotypical and the witness probably was telling the truth but I did doubt everything that he was saying! I should also not have been so quick to accept what the doctor was saying simply because he is a doctor. Harold Shipman was a doctor, and clearly was not someone who could be trusted - so what proof did I have that the doctor was in fact telling the truth? I then realised how difficult it must be for the judge and jury to come to conclusions when they don't know who to trust and have to make assumptions based on the information that people choose to tell them.

The second witness in the trial was an older man, who was living off benefits. I have to shamefully admit that when I heard he was on benefits I immediately assumed that he was probably lying about his ill health in order to have an easy life on the dole. My view is more than likely the result of so much media coverage exposing benefit thieves, and proves how influential the media can be in influencing the opinions of the public. I thought that I was quite open minded and treated people equally, but today has made me aware of the prejudices that I have, so hopefully I will try harder not to jump to conclusions in the future! It is of course essential that a journalist is never bias in cases such as these, so that is something I must remember for the future.

I was quite surprised that I had not been told by any official not to discuss the cases in detail to anyone, because I assume that in the circumstances that the details must be confidential. Obviously I am aware that I should not discuss the cases in detail, but I definitely think that if the details are confidential, that members of the public need to be reminded of this when they leave the court as some people may not be so respectful of the confidential circumstances!

I did have a very interesting experience at the court and it definitely is something that I would be interested in doing again. It was useful because it has allowed me to understand more clearly what happens in cases such as the ones I saw, as well as making me think that court reporting is something I might like to do in the future.


Defamation

If a journalist reports something which is defamatory to an individual it means that it damages the individuals reputation and causes them to be shunned and avoided. For example, saying that someone is a murderer is defamatory to them because it would seriously damage their reputation. Similarly, claiming that a company is selling faulty products is defamatory to the company because no one would purchase anything from them.

Reputation is something which is important to all people, including celebrities. There have been many cases where a celebrity has been in a position where they are able to sue someone who has given information which could potentially damage their reputation.

Possibly the most high profile case of this in the news recently has been the allegations that David Beckham had an affair with $10,000 a night prostitute. This claim is incredibly defamatory to David Beckham, who continues to deny the charges. David Beckham intends to sue the prostitute, Irma Nici, for slander. He clearly has grounds for suing Nici because his global reputation as a family man has been defamed as well as his character and morals.

Remarkably Nici is counter-suing Beckham, claiming that he was denying her right to free speech.

I think that the difference between the two cases is quite clear. I think that Beckham has a perfectly valid reason to sue, because he has been defamed. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Nici will sue successfully because she has not really been defamed in any way as she has in fact bought it upon herself by releasing the story.

A journalist has three legal defences against libel:

1. Justification - it is true and can be proved.
2. Fair Comment  - it is only the opinion of the writer, not fact
3. Privilege.

In Chris' media law notes on defamation he states:

"...notorious pothead frog-lover Sir Paul McCartney, the arse-achingly boring billionaire scouce producer of sickly and brainless supermarket/hotel lift muzak rubbish.."

This description of Paul McCartney is incredibly defamatory to him, but Chris would have legal protection against libel. This is because these comments are clearly the opinion of the writer, not fact. Everyone has the right to express their opinions, so McCartney could not sue someone just because they don't like him!

There are cases in which it is not possible to defame a person, for example it is not possible to defame someone who is deceased. You may say something about them which other people will claim is defamatory to the dead person, but they would not have any grounds to sue you because the person, in the eyes of the law at least, no longer has a character and so can't be defamed.

There are also people who it is not possible to defame because their reputation is already so bad that nothing can make it worse. Hitler, for example, if he were alive could not be defamed by calling him a racist murderer, because facts are facts and his character would be so defamed already that it would not be possible to make the situation worse for him!

Ultimately, journalists need to be incredibly careful when commenting on any one's life because it could potentially lead to the defamation of that person. And whether the defamation was accidental or not, the individual who has been defamed would have the right to sue.