The Newsroom

Channel Four News "exclusive" could risk mistrial

(May 2010)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
For those of you who have C4 News on their facebook, you might have seen a couple of stories published today on their FB, presumably to go to air this evening regarding the murder of three women in Bradford, each of whom worked as prostitutes.

C4 News have gained access to the Amazon shopping list of the person currently being questioned regarding the murders (with arrest proceedings *already* underway), which contains titles of grizzly reading material.

I have suggested both on their FB page, and on the phone to the Editor of the programme that they are in serious danger of prejudicing a criminal trial. The person I initially spoke to said, "The story has been legal'd and our lawyers say as he's not been charged this is ok - but the stories may have to come down if he is".

What kind of halfwit doesn't realise that you cannot simply put this information in the public domain and then remove it?

What - do they intend to hand round a revolver so potential jury members can "wipe" their memories?

I'm absolutely dumbfounded - and it's the first time in recent memory I've felt compelled to call to discuss a story I've read or heard.

This action has totally shocked me, and it smacks of tabloid journalism.

Shame on you Channel Four news.

And incidentally, asking me "what [my] interest is in the story?" when I call is rather outrageous, since you're happy to fill my facebook page with your "exclusives".

Do you want social interaction, or not? Because you're damn well going to get it if you exercise such appalling judgement.
DA
David
Although I agree with the point you are making, this is not new and this is not even the worst case of this kind of trail by media - see the the newspapers treatment of Barry George for a worse example. There is a lot of talk lately about the media not being able to publish the names of men accused of rape which I think is a step in the right direction. The law defiantly needs to change so that either people arrested or even charged are not allowed to be named until after they are found guilty of a crime or they are allowed to be named but no further background information is allowed to be published. Sadly, this will not stop the media especially the newspapers looking for dirt on people and talking to their friends and neighbours but at least if the person is found not guilty they can go back to having some kind of normal life.
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
Although I agree with the point you are making, this is not new and this is not even the worst case of this kind of trail by media - see the the newspapers treatment of Barry George for a worse example. There is a lot of talk lately about the media not being able to publish the names of men accused of rape which I think is a step in the right direction. The law defiantly needs to change so that either people arrested or even charged are not allowed to be named until after they are found guilty of a crime or they are allowed to be named but no further background information is allowed to be published. Sadly, this will not stop the media especially the newspapers looking for dirt on people and talking to their friends and neighbours but at least if the person is found not guilty they can go back to having some kind of normal life.


Barry George, you will recall, was ultimately released on appeal after losing many years of his freedom. Trial by media? There was no doubt about that.

To say its "nothing new" belies the gravity of the situation; not least for (A) an innocent party or (B) the relatives of victims in the event a criminal trial is tainted.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is common sense.
GE
Gareth E
And indeed he has just been charged.
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member
And C4 News have pulled one of the stories on facebook (after the horse has bolted), yet not the first one which includes his online "shopping list".

I had a very useful chat with OfCom this afternoon, who are unfortunately powerless to step in until something has been transmitted - although its worth noting they took the matter seriously enough to refer to their team of experts before reiterating their position.

Let's hope that no damage has been done when and if this goes to trial.

Nice to see they chose to remove one of my posts on their facebook page earlier. Odd set of priorities demonstrated there. "We welcome viewer feedback", eh? Not from where I'm standing.
DV
DVB Cornwall
The 'shopping list' was shown in vision on BBC News earlier.
IS
Inspector Sands
C4 News have gained access to the Amazon shopping list of the person currently being questioned regarding the murders (with arrest proceedings *already* underway), which contains titles of grizzly reading material.


Now he's been charged isn't this sentence a bit legally iffy too? Wink

I'm pretty sure their lawyers are right and that there was no legal issue with publishing it until he was charged, after that time then there are significant reporting restrictions

It does seem like a very un-Channel 4 News type of thing to do, and of course by going public with it today they've lost the exclusivity on a potentially interesting angle that they might want to use in the future.
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 27 May 2010 8:04pm
BR
Brekkie
I think the whole thing is an amazing invasion of privacy before any charges had been made - in these circumstances the outcome could just as easily be that the suspect is completely ruled out of their enquiries - but in the time they're in custody being questioned the press can pretty much do what they like.
LU
Luke
- but in the time they're in custody being questioned the press can pretty much do what they like.


er, no they can't. any material published which runs the risk of prejudicing a jury at a possible future trial is in contempt of court.
:-(
A former member
I've been quite shocked myself watching and reading about this case. Before it was announced he had been charged a few hours ago, the BBC had a report on the man's life, almost like he had just been convicted. Today's Sun newspaper very similar in its tone. All that appearning before he's even been charged, let along convicted is very worrying.
PC
p_c_u_k
While Scotland and England have the same Contempt of Court Act, the way it's treated in both countries is very different.

I've seen tons of stuff on British programming about English trials which, if broadcast in Scotland, would be guaranteed to see the broadcasters hauled over the coals.

Theories behind this? Case law, the tabloid press traditionally being less extreme up here (until relatively recently), who knows? But I wouldn't be surprised if absolutely nothing comes of it.
BA
bilky asko
While Scotland and England have the same Contempt of Court Act, the way it's treated in both countries is very different.

I've seen tons of stuff on British programming about English trials which, if broadcast in Scotland, would be guaranteed to see the broadcasters hauled over the coals.

Theories behind this? Case law, the tabloid press traditionally being less extreme up here (until relatively recently), who knows? But I wouldn't be surprised if absolutely nothing comes of it.


The Office of Public Sector Information posted:
1
The strict liability rule


In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.
2
Limitation of scope of strict liability


(1)
The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes any speech, writing, [F1programme included in a cable programme service] or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.



(2)
The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced .



(3)
The strict liability rule applies to a publication only if the proceedings in question are active within the meaning of this section at the time of the publication.



(4)
Schedule 1 applies for determining the times at which proceedings are to be treated as active within the meaning of this section.



[F2(5)
In this section “programme service” has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Act 1990.]


Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)

F1
Words substituted by Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42, SIF 96), s. 203(1), Sch. 20 para. 31(1)(a): words were previously added by Broadcasting Act 1984 (c. 46 SIF 96), s. 57(1), Sch. 5 para. 39(1)

F2
S. 2(5) inserted by Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42, SIF 96), s. 203(1), Sch. 20, para. 31(1)(b)

3
Defence of innocent publication or distribution


(1)
A person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule as the publisher of any matter to which that rule applies if at the time of publication (having taken all reasonable care) he does not know and has no reason to suspect that relevant proceedings are active.



(2)
A person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule as the distributor of a publication containing any such matter if at the time of distribution (having taken all reasonable care) he does not know that it contains such matter and has no reason to suspect that it is likely to do so.



(3)
The burden of proof of any fact tending to establish a defence afforded by this section to any person lies upon that person.



(4)
Section 11 of the M1Administration of Justice Act 1960 is repealed.


Annotations:
Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1
The text of ss. 3(4), 4(4), 14(5), 16(6), Sch. 2 Pt.II and Pt. III paras. 1, 6 and 7 is in the form in which it was originally enacted: it was not reproduced in Statutes in Force and does not reflect any amendments or repeals which may have been made prior to 1.2.1991
Marginal Citations

M1
1960 c. 65.

[...]

14
Proceedings in England and Wales


(1)
In any case where a court has power to commit a person to prison for contempt of court and (apart from this provision) no limitation applies to the period of committal, the committal shall (without prejudice to the power of the court to order his earlier discharge) be for a fixed term, and that term shall not on any occasion exceed two years in the case of committal by a superior court, or one month in the case of committal by an inferior court.



(2)
In any case where an inferior court has power to fine a person for contempt of court and (apart from this provision) no limit applies to the amount of the fine, the fine shall not on any occasion exceed [F1£2,500].



[F2(2A)
A fine imposed under subsection (2) above shall be deemed, for the purposes of any enactment, to be a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.]



[F3(2A)
In the exercise of jurisdiction to commit for contempt of court or any kindred offence the court shall not deal with the offender by making an order under [F4section 60 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000] (an attendance centre order) if it appears to the court, after considering any available evidence, that he is under 17 years of age.]



(3)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F5



(4)
Each of the superior courts shall have the like power to make a hospital order or guardianship order under [F6section 37 of the M1Mental Health Act 1983][F7or an interim hospital order under][F6section 38 of that Act] in the case of a person suffering from mental illness or [F8severe mental impairment] who could otherwise be committed to prison for contempt of court as the Crown Court has under that section in the case of a person convicted of an offence.



[F9(4A)
Each of the superior courts shall have the like power to make an order under [F10section 35 of the said Act of 1983] (remand for report on accused’s mental condition) where there is reason to suspect that a person who could be committed to prison for contempt of court is suffering from mental illness or severe mental impairment as the Crown Court has under that section in the case of an accused person within the meaning of that section.]



[F11(4A)
For the purpose of the preceding provisions of this section a country court shall be treated as a superior court and not as an inferior court.]



(5)
The enactments specified in Part III of Schedule 2 shall have effect subject to the amendments set out in that Part, being amendments relating to the penalties and procedure in respect of certain offences of contempt in coroner’s courts, county courts and magistrates’ courts.


Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)

F1
Words in s. 14(2) substituted (E.W.) (1.10.1992) by Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53, SIF 39:1), s. 17(3), Sch. 4 Pt. I; S.I. 1992/333, art. 2(2), Sch. 2.

F2
S. 14(2A) commencing "Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991..." inserted (E.W.) (1.10.1992) by Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53, SIF 39:1), s. 17(3), Sch. 4 Pt. V para. 3 (with s. 2Cool; S.I. 1992/333, art. 2(2), Sch. 2 and substituted (20.9.1993) by 1993 c. 36, s. 65(3), Sch. 3 para. 6(5); S.I. 1993/1968, art. 2(2), Sch. 2..

F3
S. 14(2A) commencing "In the exercise of jurisdiction..." inserted (24.5.1983) by Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48, SIF 39:1), Sch. 14 para. 60

F4
Words in s. 14(2A) (inserted by the Criminal Justice Act 1982) inserted (25.8.2000) by 2000 c. 6, ss. 165, 168(1), Sch. 9 para. 84

F5
S. 14(3) repealed by Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48, SIF 39:1), Sch. 16

F6
Words substituted by Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20, SIF 85), Sch. 4 para. 57(a)

F7
Words inserted by Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 (c. 51, SIF 85), Sch. 3 para. 59(a)

F8
Words substituted by Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 (c. 51, SIF 85), Sch. 3 para. 59(b)

F9
S. 14(4A): first (4A) inserted (30.9.1983) by Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 (c. 51, SIF 85), Sch. 3 para. 60

F10
Words substituted (30.9.1983) by Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20, SIF 85), Sch. 4 para. 57(b)

F11
S. 14(4A): second (4A) inserted by County Courts (Penalties for Contempt) Act 1983 (c. 45, SIF 39:3) (Royal Assent 13.5.1983), ss. 1, 2
Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1
S. 14(2): power to amend conferred (E.W.) by Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43, SIF 82), s. 143(2)(f), Sch. 6A as inserted by Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c. 48, SIF 39:1), s. 48, Sch. 5 and substituted (E.W.) (1.10.1992) by Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53, SIF 39:1), s. 17(3), Sch. 4 Pt. IV (with s. 2Cool; S.I. 1992/333, art. 2(2), Sch. 2.

C2
The text of ss. 3(4), 4(4), 14(5), 16(6), Sch. 2 Pt.II and Pt. III paras. 1, 6 and 7 is in the form in which it was originally enacted: it was not reproduced in Statutes in Force and does not reflect any amendments or repeals which may have been made prior to 1.2.1991
Extent Information

E1
In its application to Northern Ireland, s. 14 has effect as set out in Sch. 4, see s. 18.
Marginal Citations

M1
1983 c. 20.


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1981/plain/cukpga_19810049_en#pb3-l1g14

Newer posts