Birmingham arrests and justice

Nick Cohen writing in the Observer today asks

IS JUSTICE SERVED BY THESE TALES OF BEHEADING?

The coverage this week of the arrests in Birmingham and the allegations that have followed have once again brought discussions about how the media treats these investigations.Following hard on the Ipswich murders case before Xmas,Cohen reminds us of the rules

Once detectives arrest a suspect, no one can say a word that might prejudice his or her trial. Freedom of speech stopped when the handcuffs went on. Legal sanctions must protect the minds of jurors from contamination by the outside world so they can assess the evidence in a state of virginal purity.

That the media have followed the rule this week is questionable with its headlines of beheadings allegations of Qaeda training and the use of soldiers as decoys.

Cohen though argues that perhaps a littel more freedom of speach may in fact assist tyhe legal process

I used to think that the possibility of prejudiced trial overrode the right of people of Sparkbrook and Sparkhill for an explanation. Injustice would inevitably follow if the media were able to whip up a hate campaign. But maybe Britain's problem is not that there's too much prejudicial coverage but too little. Perhaps there would be fewer miscarriages of justice if we put a little more trust in freedom of speech.

Perhaps he asks

in an age of terror, the police and security services have a duty to brief the public, then defence solicitors should surely be allowed to go to the media, brief back and appeal for witnesses. Terror may change the rules, but it shouldn't tilt the level playing field of the courtroom.