So it’s week two of my journalism degree and I feel I’ve been pounded with so much knowledge but I love learning and if I didn’t I wouldn’t be here. I’ve discovered that reading is paramount to lectures, seminars and general understanding. By paramount I basically mean there is lots and lots of reading, an abundance of pages scattered around the flat to be exact. This week’s reading prep for the media law lecture was intense; consisting of 28 pages of notes and now I’ve made the decision to rewrite in a blog format – am I mad? Possibly.
Chapter 1:
The Editors’ Code of Practice sets the standards for journalists working for newspapers, magazines and free-standing editorial websites – broadcasting journalism has its own alternative regulatory system. In the UK, there are no state controls on who can own or run these publications however there is one exception this being the anti-monopoly laws on corporate mergers. These privileges mean that the UK’s media is relatively free from influence of the state so able to be biased about social issues and can support certain political parties. Editors are free to campaign on any issue and can publish any fierce criticisms as long as they are subject to the restraints of libel and other laws. Owners in the industry recognise the irresponsibility of journalists could lead to Parliament introducing a statutory system of regulations, specific standards of accuracy and fairness etc or perhaps even to establish tribunals to impose financial penalties and force editors to publish corrections.
The PCC is responsible for tackling complaints against editors and journalists in these media sectors previously discussed; it requires editors to publish adverse adjudications but it cannot force this.
The Editors’ Code sets out ethical standards on 16 clauses including: accuracy, opportunity for people to reply to inaccuracies, privacy, harassment, intrusion into grief and shock, excessive detail in covering suicides, the welfare of children in the media, anonymity for children in sex cases and all sexual assault victims, hospital inquiries, crime reporting, secret filming and misrepresentation.
Public interest is a large factor in the justification of breaches in the Editors’ Code with the exception of cases of children where reasoning must be heavily assured. This includes, but isn’t confined to:
Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety
Protecting public health and safety
Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation
‘There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself’ relates to the idea that media is the essentially the voice of the people but there is no exception to inaccuracy.
The most serious restrictions lie on the ban of discriminatory material on the grounds of race, religion, sexual preference, gender, disability or physical or mental illness. All references to these must be relevant to the story.
Chapter 2:
Broadcast journalism’s regulation is controlled by Ofcom and not the Editors’ Code of Practice. Ofcom’s code states that broadcast organisations must be impartial when covering political and social issues, be accurate, treat people fairly, respect privacy and avoid harm and offence.
The watershed blockade is thoroughly covered in this chapter and an important note is that rules apply to radio too – at such times that children would be listening. Ofcom states that there must be clear information previous to the programme starting warning of any distress that it may cause, violence before 9 should be appropriately limited, offensive language and portrayal or discussion of sex should be limited. Broadcasters must also take precautions to avoid harm to viewers with photosensitive epilepsy.
Many clauses in Ofcom’s regulatory system are similar to the Editors’ Code of Practice especially on the areas of privacy, deception, due impartiality and accuracy and, public interest. Public interest does however have one more exception in broadcast journalism: disclosing incompetence that affects the public.
The BBC have their own methods of regulation, these exist in the form of the Royal Charter and the Agreement with Parliament which are renewed every 10 years. This ensures controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality and accuracy monitored by the BBC Trust, who publish appeal findings online but complaints are sent to the BBC itself. The Royal Charter and the Agreement with Parliament regulate the BBC in a similar way to Ofcom’s code but if a client intends to complain about an issue other than due impartiality and due accuracy they need to go through Ofcom.
Chapter 4:
Crime: media coverage prior to any court case
Police investigations are driven by the standard of proof needed for conviction, the media should understand the power to arrest and detain. There is a strong public interest in reporting crime therefore the media need to be particularly wary of contempt of law when the case is made active and not just to focus on the story sales. Libel risks are also a factor if the media identify a suspect before they are charged.
We must remember that the accused enjoy ‘the presumption of innocence’ so the responsibility lies on the prosecutor to prove guilt ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
As soon as a case has been declared ‘active’ the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is immediately in force creating limitations on what can and cannot be published in the media. Police may release a statement when questioning a member of the public describing them as ‘helping with enquiries’.
The Crown Prosecution Service is independent of the police and its duty is to advise and direct the courts in whether the suspect should be prosecuted and the formal charges of the prosecution. The service can implement police bail to give the jury extra time but the case would still be active and therefore subject to the Contempt of Court Act. CPS lawyers have the final decision to assess if there is ‘a realistic prospect of conviction’ and the consideration of public interest, in most cases, leads to prosecution.
Any citizen has the fundamental right to counterbalance inertia or partiality in the form of a private prosecution. The ‘laying of information’ to the magistrates is the beginning of the process but ultimately the magistrates and the Attorney General have the final decision on the next proceedings. Magistrates can refuse summons if they believe the case to be frivolous and there is potential in the case becoming unsustainable as the individual lacks the investigatory powers given by law to the courts.
Libel is a significant risk when reporting the courts pre-trial in the media. If journalists publish a suspect’s name and he/she is later not prosecuted, the publication could then be liable for a claim of libel. Even publishing the phrase ‘under arrest’ is defamatory as there is a clear inference of guilt for the suspect. However there are a number of exceptions to the publication of identity, for example: if a spokesperson for a government agency releases the name it is safe to publish under the protection of qualified privilege, if there is a leak of police information indicating a definite charge and if the defendant is charged; the damage to their reputation is likely to be dwarfed by the consequent court case.
The Education Act 2011 bans the identification of a teacher who has allegedly committed a crime on a pupil at his/her school unless they are eventually charged. This is an automatic and indefinite ban therefore bestowing lifelong anonymity on the suspect but this of course lapses immediately with charge of the crime. Either courts can remove anonymity ‘in the interests of justice’ but teachers have the right to waive this. The Education Act is controversial as no other profession has the advantage of a pre-charge anonymity
Chapter 5:
McNae’s divides criminal offences into three categories
- Indictable-only offences are the most serious cases therefore carrying the longest prison sentences. Magistrates are seen to be too lenient for a defendant in such a case so it quickly progresses to the Crown court.
- Either-way offences include theft, sexual assault and GBH. These offences can be resolved in either the magistrate or Crown court dependant on its severity. The defendant can choose to exercise their legal right to opt for trial by a Crown court jury.
- Summary offences are more of a minor crime including common assault, being drunk and disorderly and speeding. Magistrates resolve these offences unless the same event is both a summary and either-way case where the defendant is summoned to the Crown court. However, the suspect has no right to be tried by a jury these cases are generally completed at a relative speed.
When defining criminality, there are two elements in which the prosecutor must prove before conviction. Actus reus is the lawyers’ Latin term for an act which is potentially criminal and mens rea is when an act is referred to as being carried out, planned or attempted with guilty intent in the knowledge of being morally wrong.
Strict liability removes or limits any legal defences to the charge. It can be seen as a practical and societal solution to discourage dangerous or anti-social conduct as mens rea is near on impossible to prove.
Chapter 6: Magistrates courts: summary cases
Pleas for defendants facing summary charges are taken in the magistrates’ court at first appearance. If their plea is guilty, they are convicted and sentencing usually takes place at a later time. However, if the defendant pleads not guilty, a very minor offence may be tried there but most cases will be adjourned for summary trial. The magistrates must then decide whether to grant bail.
Bail is the granting of liberty to a defendant until the case’s next hearing. The court may implement conditions of bail but under the Bail Act 1976 the general rule is that a defendant must be granted bail unless:
The court believes there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she will abscond, commit another offence or obstruct the course of justice
The court decides the defendant should be kept imprisoned for their own safety
When previously on bail, the defendant was alleged to have committed another offence
The defendant is already serving a prison sentence
There is insufficient information to decide on bail
In the minority of cases, the court may insist that the defendant must have a surety before bail can be granted. A surety is the guarantee of the defendant surrendering to bail, the person will agree to forfeit a sum of money in the event of the defendant absconding. Absconding during bail is a criminal offence so would likely result in an arrest warrant being issued. If in the event of the magistrates refusing to grant bail, the defendant can challenge the objection by appealing to the Crown court.
Section 8C is the automatic reporting restrictions for cases at magistrates’ court when the defendant pleads not guilty. When these restrictions are in force the media can only report on seven categories of information from the pre-trial proceedings, these being:
The name of the court and the magistrates’ names
The names, ages, addresses and occupations of the defendant(s) and witnesses
The charges
The names of lawyers in the proceedings (both solicitors and barristers)
The date and place of adjournment
Bail arrangements
Whether legal aid was granted
Magistrates can repeal the 8C reporting restrictions in full or in part for the interests of justice. If there are any objections to the retraction, they must not be reported until the disposal of the case.
There are other types of sentences in British courts, including: a community order, a conditional discharge with no immediately specified punishment or an absolute discharge where no punishment other than the fact of the conviction is deemed necessary.
Chapter 7: Magistrates: most serious criminal cases
When a defendant on an indictable – only charge appears before magistrates it is only a preliminary hearing before the formality that is the ‘sending for trial’. This is a relatively quick process that transfers cases to the Crown court.
The section 8 restrictions as discussed in the previous chapter prevent the publication from preliminary hearings of:
Any reference to evidence in the case other than that in the wording of the charge(s)
Any previous convictions the defendant may have
Any other material with potential to create prejudice
In the event of any breach of these terms, the proprietor, editor, publisher or broadcasting body can be prosecuted with a maximum fine of £5,000 but they could also be liable for substantially high costs under section 93 of the Courts Act 2003 if the case is aborted due to breaches creating prejudice.
There are certain exceptions to this for example: if a defendant requests the retraction of the restrictions, for an either-way charge if it becomes clear that the defendant is to be dealt with summarily, if magistrates decide there is insufficient evidence to commit any suspects of an either-way case to the Crown court and when the case has been concluded.
A few additional details from today’s lecture I will be adding in a further post to follow shortly.
megrosefisher 