Baby P's killers unmasked under Article 10

The front pages are filled with the pictures of the people involved in the death of Baby P following a courts ruling that it was necessary to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.

Of course the fall out will be that the taxpayer will now have to pay for new identities for those involved.

Pictures have been available for some time having been leaked onto the internet last year and this no doubt contributed to the pressure on the courts yesterday.

As the Guardian reports

The decision by Mr Justice Coleridge to withdraw the protection of anonymity from Tracey Connelly and Baby Peter's stepfather, Steven Barker, followed pressure from several major media organisations, including the BBC, the Mirror Group, and the Times, who argued that this was important to ensure that those who caused the toddler's death were being properly held to account.

The courts stood behind article 10 of the Human Rights Act, the right to freedom of expression.

Not surprsingly there is massive coverage in the media this morning and no doubt the judge's decision will be poured over

Once again the Shannon reporting borders on contempt

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.

But it is only my personal opinion

Nearly a year ago I wrote on this blog about the Irish times which was fined £25,000 for publishing a bad restuarant review

Well the paper is to appeal agianst the ruling and for Giles Coren writing in today's Times it is not a day too soon who following the ruling

Suddenly, now I was having weekly conversations with the Times lawyers that went something like this: “You claim in your article that the tiramisu tastes of vole's vomit/ mouse poo/ the contents of a country vet's turn-ups at the end of a long hot day artificially inseminating pigs...”

but now must say

'In my personal opinion, based on previous eatings of tiramisu on diverse premises on independently verifiable occasions, I have formed the subjective notion that this tiramisu tasted “unusual”. But that's only me. And other people may find otherwise. After all, de gustibus nil disputandum, and all that'.”

Media freedom in Europe

The association of European journalists has just published a survey of media freedom across Europe

According to their site

The Survey covers 20 countries in eastern and western Europe and highlights evidence
that media freedom in Europe is threatened by restrictive laws, hidden political and
commercial pressures, threats of jail, intimidation and in some cases even murder.
The findings are intended to encourage and assist future campaigns for media freedom
and independence.

Its maim finding are that

Media freedom and independence in Europe are not assured, and in some of the countries surveyed they are growing weaker. They must be won in law and in practice.

The problems of direct political interference in media affairs and contents are more acute in the “new democracies” of Central and Eastern Europe; but Western European countries can no longer be confident that they offer a more secure model of media freedom. New political and economic pressures in many of the older EU states mean that media freedom and independence there, too, are insecure.

You can download the whole report for free and there is a country by country section and nothing much to worry about in the Uk

Media freedom appears lively and strong in Britain three years after a notable setback in 2004, when the chairman and director-general of the BBC as well as a reporter were forced to resign after a confrontation over the reporting of flaws in a government dossier about supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and the death of a weapons expert, Dr David Kelly.

FT gagged over Northern Rock

The question of what is in the public interest raised its head last night as the FT bya high court injunction as it sought to publish the memorandum of sale for Northern rock

This from the FT's blog

We are currently covered by a partial, temporary injunction covering the contents of a sale memorandum sent out to about 50 potential acquirers of Northern Rock. It runs until next Tuesday, where upon full evidence in the case will be heard.
In publishing information from the sale memorandum, we took the view here at FT Alphaville that the shareholders of Northern Rock and the market generally were entitled to know the assessment of the financial position of the bank - an institution that has had to borrow something north of £20bn from the Bank of England.
In response, Northern Rock sought an injunction which would prevent the whole of the media from reporting anything about the sale memorandum.
The FT’s crack legal squad vigorously resisted this and, as a result, the scope of the injunction sought was considerably narrowed. For example, Northern Rock wanted the injunction to prevent publication of the names of those who had been provided with the sale memorandum, notwithstanding the fact that names of potential bidders have already been widely published.
Northern Rock also sought an order that would have prevented disclosure of the fact that it had obtained an injunction. The FT resisted this and the order was refused.
Northern Rock intended that an injunction should be obtained anonymously, but this was also unsuccessful.

I presume that the high court has taken the same positioin that Gordon Brown did at PM's questions when he decided that the interest of the UK taxpayers who have lent the bank £24m is outweighed by the shareholders and bidders of the Company

Blogging disputes

The other news that I missed last week whilst away and without internet access was the libel suit that took down a number of blogs.Robin Hamman relates the story very well on his blog

Essentially the threat of a libel action by an Uzbek billionaire and Arsenal shareholder led to a number of unrealted sites being taken offline by Fasthosts including a couple I read by Boris Johnson and Bob Piper.According to Robin

In response, Hundreds of UK bloggers have now rallied round and added buttons showing their support for free speech rights.

Trainee gets it right

Some hope for all us training to be journalists.

Hold the front page reports that a trainee journalist persuaded a judge to overturn a section 39 order which prevented the identification of two rapists at a Croydon Crown Court.

They report that

Judge Waller said he would lift a restriction on the publication of both Clinton and McDermott's names after receiving a persuasive letter from the Croydon Guardian, although he did admit the restriction on McDermott's name had been an error as he is over 18.

Yes Why did they do it

An interesting piece from Martin Moore about the Mail on Sunday's apology to John Snow over the articles that it has printed over the alleged affair and smoking of cannabis.


Martin asks

"So why did they do it? Was it simply malice? Did Williams approach the paper with an invented story? Has she, as has been alleged, done paid work for the newspaper before - which would suggest a prior editorial relationship? If anyone knows please tell me because I'm baffled"

Review of contempt laws under way

The Guardian is reporting this morning that Lord Goldsmith is looking into an overall of the contempt laws regarding the media.

It comes no doubt as a response to the advance coverage of suspects.Interntaional studies have shown that publicity has little effect on juries .

According to the report:

"In a speech to the Reform Club Media Group last night,
he said he wanted to explore jurors' attitude to media reporting. It is
generally assumed that the risk of prejudice is greater the nearer the reporting
is to the trial, and fades over time. But Lord Goldsmith said the concept of the
"fade factor" had never been properly tested. The research will also analyse the
"comparative impact of different forms of reporting - national and local,
broadcast and print, internet reports, and so on; and how far jurors can put out
of their mind reports which they have seen or heard",

Perhaps in this age of 24 constant media coverage it is time to re examine these issues