The contempt of court act and its relevence to the Shannon Matthews case is debated on the
BBC Editors blog.It is not the first time that this issue has come up with regard to high profile cases and it wont be the last
As Ceri Thomas reminds us
Once a prosecution is ‘active’ – which usually means once a suspect has been arrested or charged – the Act prevents the media publishing anything which might pose a “substantial risk of serious prejudice” to the court case which we expect to follow.
Interestingly his research on the subject suggests:
First, judges seem more and more willing to believe that juries will disregard press coverage that they might have seen around the time that someone is arrested. In fact, they think jurors will probably have forgotten about it by the time the case comes to trial. ( the fade factor)
Secondly the effects of the internet.As he points out
At the moment the law is based on the notion that we can create the conditions for a fair trial by denying people certain important pieces of information.
But what if you can’t deny people that information any more?
And therefore
If you’re a juror sitting on a high-profile criminal trial your curiosity might lead you to check whether the alleged villain in the dock has a long criminal record. You could find that information very quickly on the internet – and, remember, it’s information which would have been published perfectly properly at the time.
