Online Journalism News

Restricted reporting: what’s the future for contempt of court?

Posted: 03/09/08 By: Judith Townend

Email this story | Comments

Current legislation in the UK restricts the reporting of trials during active proceedings to prevent what's happening outside the courtroom influencing the jury inside.

But online content changes everything: even if something is reported prior to a case becoming active – namely, after an arrest has been made – the content is still 'live' and easily accessible by jurors online during a trial.

In an era of 24-hour news coverage, social networking, and 'never-die news' courtesy of the web, contempt of court legislation in the UK is facing pressure to change.

Is Contempt of Court legislation relevant, given the changing nature of technology? The challenge is how to avoid prejudicing trials in this 21st century news climate.

The Society of Editors (SoE) has appealed to two different Attorney-Generals for a review, and in July beseeched secretary of state for justice, Jack Straw, to start the process.

Journalism.co.uk talked to Bob Satchwell, executive director of SoE and former editor of the Cambridge Evening News, to explain why he thinks reform is needed.

Academic research and review of the UK's contempt of court laws needs to be instigated at a government level, says Satchwell, who is optimistic despite a lack of action so far: "Last time we had a meeting in July he [Jack Straw] listened to what we had to say and I believe we might make some progress."

There is a need for 'a general review of contempt so everyone knows where we stand,' he says.

According to Satchwell, it’s not just the internet causing problems for existing legislation, there’s 24-hour news on television and radio, and the way police give evidence at press conferences and how it's reported.

He's concerned the country will reach a stage where the media will be told 'you just can’t report anything', which would be 'quite ridiculous': "[T]he public has a right to know these things and the public must be kept informed. What must be done is a review of the rules."

Firstly though, Satchwell is calling for academic research into juries and says they should be trusted not to go online during trials.

"The anecdotal evidence is that the juries do take their duties very seriously, when they’re told that they must only try the case on the basis of the evidence they hear."

"The point is that there are some people who will say you can’t have jury trials, but I think we all agree that jury trials are important in our system, and if you’re going to have jury trials you have to trust the jury to try the case on the merits of the evidence they hear in court.

"You have to strengthen the warnings not to look at anything else."

Once public trust in juries is reinforced Satchwell believes a 'clear and wide-ranging' review of the rules is the next step. But, he adds: "What we don’t want to do is have a big knee-jerk reaction which would close up and tighten reporting - that would be very bad indeed for the administration of justice."
Society of Editors

What Satchwell sees as the future is opening up reporting during cases, following the lead of a protocol drawn up by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) - in place since October 2005 - which has allowed for reporting of events in court that day.

"The more you can give the public like that, the more it increases confidence in the judicial system. Because it’s more open, people become more confident about it. It’s not just good for the media, it’s good for the public, and good for the system," he says.

While he’s keen to stress he does not want to go down the road of US style court reporting, where jurors can give televised interviews after trials, he does call for relaxing reporting restrictions.

"The way of dealing with it is not stopping the publication, but strengthening the reminders to jurors that they must look at the evidence which is brought before them in court. Who’s to stop people in another jurisdiction putting it online? The internet is global. You cannot, by legislation, control the internet."

The research and review should involve academics, police, lawyers, and the media – all in the aim of finding a solution that is 'best for the system of justice, one of fairness and one of openness', he says.

While journalists and lawyers wait for Straw’s next step, Satchwell will carry on pressing for research and review at government level, before it gets to a point, which he fears, could be too late.

Tags (click tag to find related articles; click icon for feed):
legal | features | society of editors | bob satchwell |

Got a story? Email our news team: Laura Oliver; Judith Townend or telephone +44 (0)1273 384290. You can also follow us on Twitter: @journalismnews / @LauraOliver / @JTownend.