02 Dec 11 | Uncategorized
Attorney General Dominic Grieve has cautioned against journalists assuming that they are free to report what is said in parliament without fear of bring prosecuted.
Speaking at City University, London, Grieve said “it is still an open question as to whether something said in parliament in breach of a court order may be repeated in the press.”
He explained that journalists are protected by qualified privilege in producing a “a fair and accurate report of proceedings”, but warned that “just because something has been said does not mean it can be repeated out of context”.
He said that the privilege to report parliamentary proceedings does not necessarily extend to all publications that are not published by order of parliament, and that this has “yet to be authoritatively decided but will shortly be considered further by parliament.”
He referred to the case earlier this year in which MPs took advantage of parliamentary privilege to reveal the identities of public figures that were protected by injunctions. Grieve argued that it “ill serves the parliamentary process if court orders are openly flouted for no good reason”.
He also criticised the British press for what he saw as irresponsible reporting. Citing the tabloids’ coverage of Chris Jefferies, who was wrongly arrested by police investigating the murder of Bristol woman Joanna Yeates, Grieve said the British press had increasingly tested the boundaries of what was acceptable in reporting criminal cases. “At times it appeared to me the press had lost any sense of internal constraint and felt able, indeed entitled, to print what they wished, shielded by the right of ‘freedom of expression’ without any of the concomitant responsibilities,” he said.
He went on to suggest the need for a “moral imperative…to observe common decency when reporting on such cases.”
He added that the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allowed a defendant’s previous convictions to be given in evidence at a trial, may have exacerbated matters. It is essential, he argued, “that jurors are not contaminated by material which has not been presented to them as evidence — it is only upon the evidence that their verdict must be based.”
He reiterated maintaining the “sanctity” of the jury room, expressing concern that “uncontrolled, such reporting could eventually undermine the jury system”.
He highlighted the “challenge” of the internet, whose inhabitants often feel “unconstrained by the laws of the land.” The belief that, so long as something is published in cyberspace there is no need to respect libel or contempt laws was, he said, “mistaken”.
Grieve reiterated he was a staunch defender of the freedom of the press, and wanted to build a consensus with bodies such as the Press Complaints Commission. He said meetings with the PCC and other media organisations suggested the press would welcome more advisory notices — as issued in the case of Jefferies — which highlight potential problems with coverage.
Grieve said that, although it has been practice to issue advisory notices in only the most extreme of cases, that did not mean that the absence of a notice in a case meant it is “open season”.
Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, Grieve has this year successfully prosecuted the Sun and the Mirror for its treatment of Jefferies. The papers were fined £18,000 and £50,000 respectively. Grieve is also currently pursuing contempt actions against Sky News and the Spectator.
Marta Cooper is an editorial assistant at Index on Censorship
01 Nov 11 | Leveson Inquiry, Uncategorized
The celebrity trend of taking out injunctions to prevent publication has calmed, according to some of Britain’s top editors. Giving evidence at the joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions yesterday Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor; Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye; John Witherow, editor of the Sunday Times and Jonathan Grun from the Press Association, explained that he felt the balance between freedom of expression and privacy has been restored.
Speaking at the committee, Hislop called the lull in injunctions an “outbreak of sanity,” whilst John Witherow said superinjunctions had been “scattered around like confetti,” and added that the mood now seems to have changed. Hislop attributed the decline to a number of “spectacular own goals” and said the “worrying” trend had caused a “real chilling effect” on free speech. Witherow agreed, and cited the recent case of Jeremy Clarkson as a deterrent.
Following the recent press scandals, Grun explained: “All of the furore we’ve had with super injunctions and phone hacking has created a distorted lens on the media.”
Grun added: “It does misrepresent the day-to-day activities of hundreds of newsrooms across the country. In newsrooms across the country journalists take decisions beneath the radar but those decisions tend to guard the privacy of what you would describe as ordinary people.”
When asked if declining sales was the reason behind the publication of sensationalist articles, all of the editors disagreed. Hislop said “printing the truth is the way to sell papers,” whilst Grun advised that “accuracy underpins everything we do at PA.” Rusbridger added that using “commercial consideration” when deciding whether to run a story is dangerous.
He explained: “If you’re going to lessen standards or become lax because you think that’s a route to better sales, it’s a slippery slope.”
Similarly, the editors all agreed that defining the public interest for editorial decisions was clear, with Hislop adding that it comes down to “common sense.”
Ian Hislop suggested that “the libel business dried up, and privacy became the next avenue,” whilst Rusbridger named the breach of confidence as his biggest issue as a newspaper editor, describing it as an “ever present threat” which can hit you, commenting “I’m much more worried about confidence.”
But the editors added that it was unclear how many injunctions still stood. Witherow said: “We may never know how many stories have not been covered, or how many people who have been up to no good will sleep a little easier.”
Earlier in the day, Joshua Rozenberg, a legal commentator and journalist; Professor Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications at Westminster University and Professor Brian Cathcart, founder of the Hacked Off campaign and professor of Journalism at Kingston University, also gave their evidence to the committee.
Alice Purkiss is an editorial assistant at Index on Censorship
27 Oct 11 | Uncategorized
Today’s interview with Jeremy Clarkson in the Daily Telegraph provides an interesting line on living with an injunction.
Clarkson had an injunction on stories detailing his relations with his ex-wife, Alexandra Hall.
They are incredibly expensive to maintain and there’s an assumption of guilt about which you can do nothing because I’m as bound by it as everybody else.
So you sit there with everyone and you go, huh, ex-wife, and you can’t say anything, so I just thought I wanted to get rid of it and it will save us a hell of a lot of heartache.
I must admit it’s something I’d never really thought about. Once you have an injunction concerning an area of your life, you are subject to it just as everyone else is, and have added a layer of censorship to something that probably already causes you considerable anguish.
21 Jun 11 | Uncategorized
Celebrity, tawdriness and free speech — the issues surrounding privacy create a perfect storm for those worried about the standards of our tabloid press on the one hand and a secretive state on the other. For advocates of free expression, led by Index on Censorship, the row over privacy and injunctions has proved testing. But it need not be. (more…)
