Introduction to Media Law and Ethics

“If in doubt leave it out.” These are the wise words of Ian Anderson, former BBC editor. Every journalist needs to be aware of the regulatory body’s OFCOM and the Press Complaints Commission, educating ourselves on law and ethics to ensure that we would be able to recognise risks within copy. As a journalist we need to have a sixth sense of danger, constantly questioning what ultimately is safe to produce a report that is legally sound and entirely without error.  

This week we have seen three showbiz stars, in the dock for charges relating to indecent and sexual assault. Plastering the front pages of every newspaper, court reports covering the trials of William Roache, Rolf Harris and DJ Dave Lee Travis took the media by storm. Additionally the trial of Nigella’s Lawson’s assistants which left the celebrity cook feeling as though as a witness she was the one in the dock, after secrets unravelled relating to her past involving drugs.  These are just a few examples of how court is a rich source of stories for journalists, and with several important laws surrounding contempt of court, it is crucial that they know the laws with reporting the courts. Detailed notes on this can be found here. (This includes a detailed diagram of the legal court system.)

The press are currently under scrutiny following the Leveson Inquiry, and due to the phone hacking revelation there is now a standoff between politicians and the press over press regulation. David Cameron argued that the PCC failed after a ‘meaningless’ and inadequate report into phone hacking, leading to row over who polices the press? This could be the biggest shift in media policy that we will see.

There is two part division in law: criminal and civil. The difference being that criminal is a crime against society e.g robbery, murder, assault and civil is a dispute between two parties for example family law or divorce. 

A famous libel case known as McLibel, was the longest running case in English history. The battle was between McDonalds and the McLibel two: (Steel & Morris) over a pamphlet that was critical of the company. ‘What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know,’ was the title of their leaflet. The judge ruled that some of the claims were libellous but other were true.  The original case lasting 10 years, awarded Macdonalds £40k but they announced that they did not plan to collect this money from the Courts. Following this decision the European court of Human Rights ruled that the original trial denied the two a fair trial, breaching Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) ordering the UK government to pay Steel and Morris £57k in compensation.

Over the coming weeks we will be discussing all the areas within law including confidentiality, privacy, freedom of information, copy right, codes of conduct, court reporting etc so watch this space for more to follow on media law. 

Week 5 - The Justice Gap

Mansfield and Zander clash over legal aid funding

Professor Michael Zander came to the University of Winchester to speak at the launch of the new Crime and Justice Centre, I transcribed his lecture notes here.  During his speech he commented on the matter of legal aid funding, backing that our legal aid system is better then any other country. During the interview for the Justice Gap with Michael Mansfield I threw him the question on what he thought about this comment and he responded against what Zander had to say.

This week I realised how important it is to re-address the people you speak to and share the article you have written about them rather then shy away in hope they won't see what you reported. Mansfield responded to Zander's comments therefore we needed to give Zander the right to reply. The argument here is that Mansfield believes the system is broken, but Zander supports that the legal system still works. However, Zander wanted to make it clear that he did not think the cuts were a good thing, so an additional line that directly addressed the fact he thought the cuts were terrible was included.

Click the headline links or view the full article here. This week marked an increase in traffic to the website, peaking close to 1000 unique views daily.

Victims to be allowed to address court before sentence

Also this week, I wrote an article on the new code which gives victims the right to read out their personal statements in court. To push my article on from the recycled press release reports I wanted to get my own quotes, I also looked to localise the story in order to use it on WINOL. I wanted to add human interest to this story by speaking with a victim that would want to comment on the new changes. However I was unsuccessful at short notice when trying to get hold of a case study as there are several issues surrounding confidentiality.

After contacting the local Victim Support Group I set up a video interview with Carolyn Martin who works at the Witness Services at Winchester Crown Court who are there to support and protect victims and witnesses. The interview went well, and it was good to build a contact from within the court and introduce myself and make the publication more known to them. A short clip of the interview was used as an OOVACT on WINOL, but as the bulletin was light on stories this week, the news editor asked for approx 35 seconds to beef out the bulletin a bit more. This interview worked well both nationally and locally and therefore it was published on both the Justice Gap website, and WINOL.

Cameras begin filming courts for first time

Furthermore, on Wednesday I was working on a text story regarding the plans for cameras to film inside the courts for the first time. When this was first brought to my attention I researched it, and saw other newspapers such as The Guardian reported the proposed filming would begin on the following Monday if the legislation is approved. After phoning the Court of Appeal to get the latest information, I was informed that it had been approved and it was going to begin the next day. Speaking with the Ministry of Justice press office I was sent the latest press release which was embargoed until 6pm that day. This was a highlight for me, working on an article before another publication had reported on it, and before the breaking news was due to go live.

Using social media we tweeted the article as it was published dead on 6pm, using the hash tag #camerasincourt. The Justice Gap reported on this landmark change moments before Sky News did, which I was extremely proud of. Full article here. 

Click the headline links to view each article.

Reporting the Courts

This week I attended a first year media law lecture on reporting the courts. As the specialist court reporter for WINOL I was asked to come and speak to the new generation of journalists, about my experiences as a crime and court reporter.

For anyone interested in learning about the UK court system here are my notes.

Courtesy of Winchester Journalism 

Two Jurisdictions: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and The Republic of Ireland

In the UK, the supreme power lies in Her Majesty the Queen. The royal prerogative is the body recognised in common law and sometimes in civil law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy. The Queen does not have to obey parliament as she has the overruling power. The government are there to advise the Queen, and Palace Whitehall which is the main residence for English Monarchs help run the country.

Executive - They run the country - (HM the Queen) - Whitehall

Legislature - Keep it in check (Parliament) - Westminster

Judiciary - Mediates between executive and legislature - Administer Justice

Society - Freedom to voice opinion

Crime is an offence against society as a whole e.g murder

Civil law is a dispute between two citizens e.g divorce

Standard of Proof - Beyond reasonable doubt 
The jury must prove that the accused did it beyond doubt. They must find the person not guilty unless they are absolutely sure that only this person has committed the crime.

Criminal division is all about punishment, it is not about compensation for victims unlike civil law.

Crime is a breach of a statute (Law passed by Parliament). Police can arrest on suspicion, but must have 'reasonable grounds' for arrest.

It is known as a committal when someone who has been arrested for a serious crime is held in a cell for up to 24 hours. When they are charged they charged they appear before a magistrates, the defendant in a serious case will then be sent to a crown court to be trialled in front of a jury.

A minor offence, known as non indictable are processed in a Magistrates Court. In a Magistrates court there is no jury. An indictable, major offence is then processed by the Crown Court where a jury is present. The jury is made up of 12 randomly selected citizens, no one is allowed to talk to the jury incase they influence or intimidate them.

If people fail to attend their trial it is treated as a separate offence known as 'absconding'.

The defendant has not been given a fair trial if the jury are prejudice, this means that they have pre-judged them. If this occurs, the defendant will be let of as the judge will deem it as unsafe.

The accused can either be held on remand which is down in the cells, or be granted bail. For lesser offences, they can be on bail for up to two years before there trial reaches the Crown Court. Police can refuse bail if they think the defendant is a danger to the public or if they think they will abscond and run away. In terrorism cases the defendant can be held without charge for 28 days.

In the British System the person accused must be present in the court.