Presumption of innocence?

[Petrushka]

As far as I know there has been no change in the law in this area (someone please correct me if there has been) but I feel increasingly concerned at the way arrested individual's names are freely bandied about in the media. There must surely be an issue here of whether or not a defendant can receive a fair trial in these circumstances.

The latest case is that of the man arrested in the Claudia Lawrence alleged murder. Not only was the arrested man's name helpfully provided by the media but a photograph too. None of this seems right to me and I wish we had the law enforced that prevents disclosure of a suspect's name until a charge has been brought.

The belief that a person is considered innocent until proved guilty is the bedrock of our justice system and the drift away from this fundamental right is worrying.

[french frank]

As far as I know there has been no change in the law in this area (someone please correct me if there has been) but I feel increasingly concerned at the way arrested individual's names are freely bandied about in the media. There must surely be an issue here of whether or not a defendant can receive a fair trial in these circumstances.

The latest case is that of the man arrested in the Claudia Lawrence alleged murder. Not only was the arrested man's name helpfully provided by the media but a photograph too. None of this seems right to me and I wish we had the law enforced that prevents disclosure of a suspect's name until a charge has been brought.

The belief that a person is considered innocent until proved guilty is the bedrock of our justice system and the drift away from this fundamental right is worrying.

Yes, 'No smoke without fire' impressions can hover in the background and somehow stick in the mind.

I was looking at this case - not at all the same point - but here illustrating how even accused people can come to believe they're guilty when they aren't.

[Serial_Apologist]

Could one of our legal beavers advise as to any possibility of inscribing contempt of court into such media exposures?

[Petrushka]

Could one of our legal beavers advise as to any possibility of inscribing contempt of court into such media exposures?

One wonders why such an attempt has not already been tried. While public interest in high profile cases is natural I've been concerned for some time about the arrested, and in particular, the wrongfully arrested, having their lives destroyed before charges have been brought. It always used to be the case that the media referred to 'a 59 year old man etc., etc.,' until charges had been brought.

Why has the change in media approach gone unchallenged in the courts?

[Ferretfancy]

I'm not supporting or condemning him, but it seems to me that press coverage of the Rolf Harris trial has been excessive and prurient. The only thing missing has been TV cameras in court, and even that is being suggested.

[Petrushka]

I'm not supporting or condemning him, but it seems to me that press coverage of the Rolf Harris trial has been excessive and prurient. The only thing missing has been TV cameras in court, and even that is being suggested.

Nothing sells newspapers like a good sex scandal. If it involves the great and the good or, even better, a 'celebrity' then the media go into overdrive. Frankly, I find it nauseating beyond belief and the words 'witch' and 'hunt' come to mind.

Thomas Macauley’s observation that there is “no sight more ridiculous than the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality” is as apt today as it ever was.

[aeolium]

I agree with the general principle put forward by Petrushka, but there is also the separate but possibly related issue of super-injunctions whereby wealthy individuals or companies are able to prevent the reporting of allegations against them via a court injunction as well as the fact that there is such an injunction, so that there is a mass of rumour swirling around which is usually only ended by the breaking or lifting of the super-injunction. The worst incidence of this was the Trafigura super-injunction, though there have also been other instances such as those involving Andrew Marr and Ryan Giggs (I think I'm not breaking the law by mentioning their names :-/) I don't think these are at all a good thing, and are part of the general mess surrounding the law of libel here, which was supposed to have been reformed ages ago.

[Nick Armstrong]

OK let's try to sort this out a little.

First of all, none of this is directly about libel. You can't get an injunction for libel (save in very extreme circs, which haven't arisen for ages) - your instances aeolie were privacy/confidentiality injunctions (and yes, you're ok).

[The only relevance of libel in this area of discussion is whether, after criminal investigation-related press coverage about an individual, the latter may subsequently be able to sue media for libel if it subsequently becomes clear he or she is innocent cf. the case of Christopher Jeffries, wrongly and stridently branded the killer of Joanna Yeates by the slavering press dingos http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1356637.html ]

You're talking about Contempt of Court - of which there are two kinds

1) Direct disobeying of a court order - this applies when individuals act in defiance of a (super)injunction for instance protecting privacy or confidential information.

2) Acting in a way that presents a serious risk of substantial prejudice to the course of justice - this applies when the media, during the course of an ongoing criminal investigation, behave in such a way as to endanger the possibility of a fair trial.

The police and the Attorney-General scrutinise this. Usually the AG sends out warnings to the media; and in cases of breach, it is for the AG to prosecute - and individuals and companies can be fined and have been. So Ferret your complaint about e.g. the Rolf Harris case is about the nature of the AG's approach there as well as about the media frenzy - and the law in this area in general.

In the case of Claudia Lawrence, unusually, the police pre-empted the AG. You might be interested to read their circular to all media:

Subject: Warning re: Reporting of the investigation into the death of Claudia Lawrence

Press release from police to the media

"Claudia Lawrence investigation: Media urged to avoid reporting that could hamper the investigation and the course of justice

North Yorkshire Police recognise the important role the media has played in the case of Claudia Lawrence and the public support and response that flows from it.

Nevertheless, it is vital that all those trusted with the responsibility for reporting recent events do so in a way that is balanced, proportionate, fair and factual.

The investigation team have to objectively balance the rights of any individual or individuals arrested and ensure their rights under due legal process are properly exercised and protected.

The reporting of names, addresses, media interviews with potential witnesses and publication of photographs of individuals, subject to live investigation, has the effect of significantly hampering the objectivity of ongoing enquiries. It can also be described as prejudicial to the rights of others, their access to fair legal process and, potentially, a fair trial.

Such is the level of concern North Yorkshire Police have on some imbalance of reporting and the potential cumulative effect such reporting could have on any later legal process, they have taken the unusual but important step of reminding all media outlets that proceedings become active under the Contempt of Court Act following the arrest of any individual or individuals. "

Ends

Greig Tindall

Media & PR Manager

Corporate Communications

North Yorkshire Police



It's a basic principle of the type 2) contempt that the media have to take care from arrest onwards - but that the name of the arrestee can be published. Personally, I do think that may need revision and that naming should only be allowed from the point of being charged which betokens that the police have substantial evidence - as you said in #1, Pet.


In the case of sexual offences I personally think it's bad that victims are anonymous throughout as of right, but suspects can be and are named. One reason cited is so that other victims may thereby be encouraged to come forward. I do think that the effect on an innocent suspect's life can be so monumental that suspects should be anonymous until charged, in these cases as with others.

[amateur51]

Great post Caliban - many thanks for the clarification.

[aeolium]

Thanks for clarifying that, Caliban. I had assumed that superinjunctions were tied up with the law of libel as they both tended to involve that well-known judge of Private Eye fame Mr Justice Eady and also the Trafigura case had involved both libel actions and a superinjunction, pursued on their behalf by the firm of Carter-Ruck (also of Eye fame). I should have said that I thought the whole area of libel, privacy and superinjunctions needed serious review.

In the case of sexual offences I personally think it's bad that victims are anonymous throughout as of right, but suspects can be and are named. One reason cited is so that other victims may thereby be encouraged to come forward. I do think that the effect on an innocent suspect's life can be so monumental that suspects should be anonymous until charged, in these cases as with others.

I agree - the law should treat both victim and accused equally here.

[Petrushka]

Many thanks for an excellent post, Caliban, and I must say a fine and robust reminder from Greig Tindall. I was astonished to see the photograph on the news programmes of the man arrested in the Claudia Lawrence case as well as reporters outside his house. I've become increasingly concerned at the behaviour of the media in this and similar cases and it would be good to see someone charged with contempt of court if only to encourage the others.

In the Lawrence case I fear the damage may already have been done and a good defence lawyer could well claim that his client's right to a fair trial has already been prejudiced.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Heaven forbid we ever go down the US road of broadcasting trials, as they did with O.J. Simpson.

[Nick Armstrong]

aeolie you got there too quick! I did add a para about sexual offences but deleted it as not directly relevant... but since you picked it up, I've added it back in, for clarity!

I agree - the law should treat both victim and accused equally here.

An additional factor highlighted by the unfortunate Christopher Jeffries is that a media storm, far from encouraging victims to come forward, can deter that and indeed hamper the actual police investigation into finding the real culprit.

Personally I think the case for changing the law to protect suspect (until charge) and victim alike is unanswerable. In my more pugnacious moments, I think the the suspect should be anonymous until found guilty - given the peculiar sensitivity of sexually-related cases.



Eady J was in charge of the High Court list which covers all media-related matters (quaintly known as the 'Jury List', because libel trials used to be the only civil cases before a jury), so he would 'do' any libel trials and also the pre-broadcast privacy/confidentiality injunction hearings. Currently Tugendhat J fulfils that rôle, but I think is about to retire and I don't know who's taking on the job (I probably ought to!)

Incidentally, libel law was reformed lately - the Defamation Act 2013 came into force on 1.1.14. It's reasonably readable by legislation standards (ignore ss 5 - 10 inc. for light reading purposes...):

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted

If you look at section 11 you will see why I say 'quaintly' in relation to the 'Jury List'...

[Petrushka]

aeolie you got there too quick! I did add a para about sexual offences but deleted it as not directly relevant... but since you picked it up, I've added it back in, for clarity!


Personally I think the case for changing the law to protect suspect (until charge) and victim alike is unanswerable. In my more pugnacious moments, I think the the suspect should be anonymous until found guilty - given the peculiar sensitivity of sexually-related cases.

I couldn't agree more with this. However, it has been claimed that rape cases would increase if the accused could shelter behind anonymity. Personally, I consider it grossly unfair that in such cases the accused can be named while the victim cannot.

[Serial_Apologist]

Thank you all very much indeed for clarifying the issue re contempt of court applying to someone charged with a sexual offence. I would imagine Caliban's idea that no one should be subject to press exposure before as well as after being charged could be treated by the media as infringing freedom of expression, though, because for scandal value they would just love to get their greasy paws all over a reputation before the law had had a chance to define the situation.