The author of People Power, Dan Jellinek, is a journalist and co-founder of Headstar, a publisher specialising in technology and social issues (I met Dan when we briefly shared the same office space in Brighton and spoke to him about various media law related issues when he was writing the book).

Here’s the information, from the publisher’s site:

As protestors around the world risk their lives in pursuit of democracy, in the UK the word has never seemed so tarnished. Surveys regularly show our politicians are not liked, not trusted and not wanted. Voter turnout is shockingly low, and episodes such as the MPs’ expenses scandal serve to confirm the opinion that public officials are all as bad as each other.

So what is the answer?

Giving us unprecedented access to the corridors of power, Dan Jellinek provides a unique and accessible guide to democracy in Britain, explaining how its elements work – from national and local government to free speech, the internet and the rule of law – and the role that we, the public, need to play to keep the wheels turning.

If you want to know how your small actions can bring about big changes, how you can improve your lot and the lives of others, then you must read this book. Stand up and be counted. The power is in your hands.

It’s available to pre-order for 4 July here (ebook and hardback); details on the publisher’s site here.

PA Media Lawyer has highlighted that a new Rule 50 of the Employment Tribunal Regulations 2013 stipulates a new provision for “Privacy and restrictions on disclosure” (PA: subscription required).

In Mr Justice Underhill’s Review of the employment tribunal rules published in 2012 he discussed privacy, restricted reporting orders and anonymity, finding that (Meeja Law’s emphasis):

The current Rules provide a limited and sharply-defined regime governing where anonymity and restricted reporting orders can be made, deriving from the prescriptive terms of sections 11 and 12 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. These have been held by recent case-law to be out of step with the requirements both of the Human Rights Act and of EU jurisprudence. Our proposed new rule 55 provides for a more flexible regime which allows Tribunals to take appropriate steps to balance the important principles of open justice and freedom of expression on the one hand and of privacy and effective justice on the other. The [proposed] rule goes beyond the explicit rule-making powers conferred by the 1996 Act but we have no doubt that it is within your powers under the Human Rights Act. The complications of the different vires have regrettably made the rule rather more elaborate than we would have wished. It is perhaps worth saying that this is not a case where the requirements of the ECHR compel a British legislator or tribunal to take steps that are contrary to domestic policy: the existing regime was poorly conceived and drafted and required revision in any event.

The government’s consultation on the review [PDF] asked whether respondents agreed with the recommended approach to make the privacy and restricted reporting regime “more flexible“. Of 48 responses, 36 said yes, 4 said no and 8 were unsure. The 4 ‘nos’ were in the Business Representative organisation / TU category.

The majority of responses (75% ) to this question welcomed the new rule which is a simplification of what was considered by many to be an overly prescriptive provision. It was widely felt that a more generic rule for when the proceedings, or part of the proceedings, could be held in private would allow judges the discretion they need to decide on the most appropriate action in individual cases.

However, we did receive strong representations from groups representing the media, who felt that this new approach was contrary to the principles of open justice and out of step with the prevailing degree of openness witnessed in other courts and tribunals. These responses considered that a more flexible privacy regime represented a move towards an augmentation in the number of closed hearings, with parties putting undue pressure on judges to restrict the reporting of tribunals for fear of damage to a business’s reputation if cases were widely reported. These responses also demanded a fuller explanation of why Government was taking this approach to the privacy rules.

In response, in March 2013, the Government said (Meeja Law’s emphasis):

It is not the Government’s intention that the new rules on privacy should restrict the ability of the media and other commentators to report on proceedings where it is appropriate to do so. The old rules on privacy and restricted reporting were designed to deal with specific instances where hearings should be held in private, and covered proceedings that involved, for the main part, allegations of sexual misconduct or disability discrimination. Mr Justice Underhill felt that it was important that his review brought the provisions on privacy in Employment Tribunals more into line with the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and new rule (new rule 60) is therefore less prescriptive. Whilst the suggested changes to the rules widen the existing legislative provisions in this area, and give judges more discretion and flexibility in the rules for deciding whether anonymity or restricted reporting orders are required, such power already exists (see the case of F v G [2012] ICR 246). In F v G, the Employment Appeal Tribunal said that where anonymisation or reporting restrictions are needed to protect a party’s rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, an Employment Tribunal can use its general powers under rule 10 to order such privacy measures. Nonetheless, it is not the intention that simply because a power is stated explicitly in the new rules it will be exercised substantially more frequently than it currently is. In making these recommendations, Mr Justice Underhill has sought to balance the needs for open justice on one side with the need for privacy and an effective tribunal system on the other.

…

Government believes that Mr Justice Underhill’s suggested rule on privacy and restricted reporting strikes the difficult balance between the need for the justice system to be as open as possible whilst also ensuring that judges have the provisions they need to manage sensitive cases in the most efficient and effective way. The new rule on privacy is much simpler to understand for all parties, and provides judges with the clear case management powers they need to approach sensitive claims on a case by case basis. However, Government recognises the concerns of the media around this amendment, and agrees that it should not become the normal practice of tribunals to hold proceedings in private. As it is now, reporting should only be restricted where it is in the interests of justice to do so. To address these concerns the new draft of the rules makes clear that in making a decision on privacy, the tribunal shall give full weight to the principle of open justice and to the Convention right to freedom of expression.

These provisions are now Rule 50 in the The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, entitled “Privacy and restrictions on disclosure” (Meeja Law’s emphasis):

50.—(1) A Tribunal may at any stage of the proceedings, on its own initiative or on application, make an order with a view to preventing or restricting the public disclosure of any aspect of those proceedings so far as it considers necessary in the interests of justice or in order to protect the Convention rights of any person or in the circumstances identified in section 10A of the Employment Tribunals Act.

(2) In considering whether to make an order under this rule, the Tribunal shall give full weight to the principle of open justice and to the Convention right to freedom of expression.

(3) Such orders may include—

(a) an order that a hearing that would otherwise be in public be conducted, in whole or in part, in private;

(b) an order that the identities of specified parties, witnesses or other persons referred to in the proceedings should not be disclosed to the public, by the use of anonymisation or otherwise, whether in the course of any hearing or in its listing or in any documents entered on the Register or otherwise forming part of the public record;

(c) an order for measures preventing witnesses at a public hearing being identifiable by members of the public;

(d) a restricted reporting order within the terms of section 11 or 12 of the Employment Tribunals Act.

(4) Any party, or other person with a legitimate interest, who has not had a reasonable opportunity to make representations before an order under this rule is made may apply to the Tribunal in writing for the order to be revoked or discharged, either on the basis of written representations or, if requested, at a hearing.

(5) Where an order is made under paragraph (3)(d) above—

(a) it shall specify the person whose identity is protected; and may specify particular matters of which publication is prohibited as likely to lead to that person’s identification;

(b) it shall specify the duration of the order;

(c) the Tribunal shall ensure that a notice of the fact that such an order has been made in relation to those proceedings is displayed on the notice board of the Tribunal with any list of the proceedings taking place before the Tribunal, and on the door of the room in which the proceedings affected by the order are taking place; and

(d) the Tribunal may order that it applies also to any other proceedings being heard as part of the same hearing.

(6) ”Convention rights” has the meaning given to it in section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998(22).

via The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.

• 10 June 2013 | Inforrm’s Blog
• 3 June 2013 | Inforrm’s Blog

I would also highly recommend another round up on the media law scene, on law and technology, compiled by Ms Lods. Her latest post is here.

The theme was ‘The challenges of complying with evolving standards’, and the other speakers included: Martin Hoskins, data protection consultant; Judith Jones, Group Manager, Government & Society, Information Commissioner’s Officer; Robert Bond, Head of Data Protection and Information Security at Speechly Bircham; and Lynne Wyeth, Head of Information Governance, Leicester City Council.

It provided a fascinating insight into the regulatory and legal challenges ahead (especially in view of the EC’s draft General Data Protection Regulation*), both in terms of the theoretical framework and practical issues on the ground for DP officers (whose number is set to increase, if EC proposals go ahead).

I attempted to give a bit of context to the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism’s ‘Open Justice in the Digital Era’ project and the privacy-related issues we have stumbled upon, in discussing potential recommendations for more efficient and systematic digitisation of courts information.

In a few bullet points, here’s the gist:

• The premise of ‘Open Justice in the Digital Era’ is simple: enhancing freedom of expression and open justice through digital dissemination of courts data
• Inspired by other initiatives opening up governmental data (e.g mySociety’s WhatDoTheyKnow, TheyWorkForYou etc.)
• But: very little useable data exists at source. It’s public (sort of) but no-one seems to have taken a particularly systematic approach to opening it up
• Our project ran two events in 2012, with view to forming recommendations in due course
• Some of the ideas discussed (not recommendations at this stage) include:
  • The publication of ‘noticeboard’ court lists
  • The publication of court results (see William Perrin and discussion on Information Rights and Wrongs / HonestlyReal)
  • The publication of court documents such as all statements of case, judgments, orders, witness statements and written submissions
  • A reporting restriction notification system (see Scottish courts online system)
  • Wider availability of judgments and judgment summaries (opened under an Open Government Licence)
• Some of this material would be fairly straightforward to open up online, but some suggestions – particularly those around court lists and sentencing data – raise thorny issues for Data Protection, Rehabilitation of Offenders and the ‘Right to be Forgotten’, a concept included in the draft Regulation
• Publication of legal information has grown up in a piecemeal fashion in the digital era – part privatized, with few central guidelines. A lot of the way material is published has its roots in journalistic / law reports convention, developed in a pre-internet world, when personal digital records would have been the stuff of dystopia novels
• At present, it’s all very inconsistent – there has been some opening up of courts information around the web (some efforts have encountered data protection objections – see Wigan World’s update, for example)
• The way courts material is handled is raising questions across Europe. In Spain, for example, the National Court (AN) has referred to the European Court of Justice with questions about a search engine result for a debt case, in relation to the Right to be Forgotten
• In 1955, Lord Denning described how a member of the public is entitled to report all that he has seen and heard in the public press. Now, the public doesn’t need the press to do it, but how should it be managed, when it has such a powerful effect on an individual’s digital identity (not only defendants, but victims and witnesses too**)?
• A couple of key questions about the current state of play: Is it logical to allow a private company to access and publish the data in closed/open databases, but not a not-for-profit organisation, or individuals? It is logical, or even possible, to publish courts data online but make it non-indexable by Google?
• In forming recommendations  we must consider these difficult issues around individuals’ privacy rights
• To discuss them is not to be hostile or obstructive to the right to freedom of expression: it is merely being responsible and ethical in our practice. We need to look at both sides of the privacy/freedom of expression coin, in order to assess the best ways of opening up information in the public interest and securing it when it’s legitimate to do so
• A coherent approach to the management of courts data is needed and the MoJ and judiciary should be giving this issue the attention it deserves

*A vote on on the lead rapporteur’s report regarding amendments to the Proposed Regulation, scheduled for 29 May, has been postponed, as a result of the high number of amendments to consider.

**As I was reminded in the questions following my talk. Other responses from the group raised even more uncertainties and questions. More views and problematic scenarios are welcome below…

The Guardian is attempting to overturn the Attorney General’s veto of the publication of Prince Charles’ correspondence with seven Government departments. An application for judicial review was heard over two days last week by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, with Lord Justice Davis and Mr Justice Globe.

Full Law and Media Round Up – 13 May 2013 at Inforrm’s Blog.

A system of arbitration is at the heart of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations, and different versions are included in the the government’s draft Royal Charter and the industry’s own proposals [PDF].

The suggestion is that an arbitration service could deal with libel and privacy complaints that would otherwise go to court.

Last minute amendments to the Crime and Courts bill (now Act) would allow for bloggers to opt into the regulatory arbitration system and receive costs benefits.

Additionally and separately, recommendations have also been made for Mediation and Early Resolution in defamation disputes.

However, there is very little solid data about the nature and quantity of legal claims made against the media, including small bloggers. Because the majority of libel claims, for example, are believed to be resolved out of court, there is no complete record of disputes.

In short, little is known about bloggers’ and journalists’ actual legal experiences and opinions.

In an effort to build a better picture and to help inform the development of new alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, I am launching a survey as the final part of my doctoral project at the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism (CLJJ), City University London.

This questionnaire is open to all types of journalists and online writers who expect their readership to be predominantly based in England and/or Wales.

Please take part and share your experiences and encourage your colleagues and friends to participate as well.

All data will be collected anonymously with no identification of organisations or individuals.

The questionnaire can be found here:

• https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/medialawsurvey

Many thanks for your help! If you have any questions you can email me (judith.townend.1@city.ac.uk) or tweet me (@jtownend).

About the project

This survey is part of Judith Townend’s doctoral project at the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism (CLJJ), City University London. The research project, which has been given ethical approval by the CLJJ, explores how journalists and online writers are affected by libel and privacy law, as well as other social and legal factors. It will draw attention to the issues faced by online writers and journalists, and help inform the development of resources in this area.

About this questionnaire

• The questionnaire is open to all types of journalists and online writers who expect their readership to be predominantly based in England and/or Wales.
• It should take between 10 and 30 minutes to complete, depending on your experiences and views. Some questions require an answer so you can be taken to the next relevant question.
• All data will be collected anonymously with no identification of organisations or individuals.
• The information you have submitted will included in a final report to be published in 2013/14, which may be used for future online and print publications.
• Please contact Judith Townend with any questions, or to obtain the final results.

Contact details:

Judith Townend, c/o Peter Aggar, Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism, City University London, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, Tel: +44 (0)20 7040 8167

E-mail: judith.townend.1@city.ac.uk

via Law and Media Round Up – 6 May 2013 | Inforrm’s Blog.

Full law and Media Round Up ( 29 April 2013) on Inforrm’s Blog…

The public was supposed to be at the heart of the Leveson Inquiry. When it was announced, David Cameron described how the ‘whole country has been shocked by the revelations of the phone hacking scandal’.^[1] Of course, establishing exactly how the public feels is a notoriously difficult exercise, but what was clear in July 2011 – two years after Nick Davies’ explosive phone hacking revelations in the Guardian – was that national newspapers finally deemed the phone hacking scandal the subject of public outrage, and the politicians reacted.

How much role did the public actually play in proceedings, then? At Bournemouth University’s ‘Media Reform Post-Leveson’ conference in February, I argued that while media and political elites provided the dominant voices in courtroom 73, the Leveson Inquiry broke new ground for court and political reporting. For the first time a public inquiry held under the Inquiries Act 2005 was played out live on the internet.^[2]

Online media provided a chance for ordinary members of the public, non-profit groups, academic researchers and small media organisations to expand and question mainstream media narratives, as they watched, blogged and tweeted proceedings. Digital communication liberated debate, enabling members of the public to report ‘in the public press all that he has seen and heard’, as Lord Denning put it^[3], in accordance with a longstanding legal tradition of open justice.

Additionally, it improved UK citizens’ right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to receive – as well as impart – information and ideas. The public’s increased access to inquiry resources and reporting tools does not necessarily indicate a greater role on the ‘news stage’, but it opens up the possibility for greater public influence on news discourse, and beyond that, political debate.

One of the aims of the Bournemouth conference was ‘to develop fresh initiatives to encourage media plurality’ and the Media Reform Coalition has asked how we can ensure ‘a genuine plurality of voices and views in the news’. Opening up courts information and data is one such way. Giving the public greater digital access to legal material at source – such as Inquiry transcripts and witness evidence – permits the public to obtain a direct account, which does not depend on news selection criteria by a small number of dominant media outlets.

The majority of the public may not wish to access the raw material, but it at least allows for the possibility of more ‘voices and views in the news’. Those who do seek out information at source will be better equipped to participate in public debate through online media, including social media, blogs and media organisations’ sites and challenge or contribute to journalists’ versions of events. There are important legal and ethical considerations to make when disseminating courts data online^[4], but Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry showed us that some steps towards digital open justice, of benefit to journalists as well as the wider public, are straightforward and can be taken with little fuss.

We are comfortable that there is a clear articulation of “blog” and “news”. Blogs are to do with the expression of the point of view of an individual or group of individuals. That is pretty straightforward, although, as with everything else, it will be subject to the courts’ deliberations at the appropriate time. Maria Miller, HoC debate, 22 April 2013.

The definitions of ‘blog’ and ‘news’ look set to be increasingly significant, in a very practical sense.

The government has updated amendments in the Crime and Courts Bill to “make clear that small blogs will not be classed as ‘relevant publishers’” who should sign up to the new regulator. Additionally, those who are not ‘relevant publishers’ but opt-in voluntarily, will receive the costs incentives of participating, including access to the regulator’s arbitration service.

DCMS has produced a flow-chart [see update at end], to help publications decide if they are expected to join the regulator or not – with the caveat that it’s not legal advice!

There are two definitions, which might prove problematic in the future (although the Secretary of State for culture, media and sport, Maria Miller, is confident they are ‘straightforward’): ‘news-related’ and ‘blog’.

It appears that if you don’t wish to fall into the ‘relevant publisher’ category and your publication isn’t defined as a ‘blog’, publishing ‘news’ should not be the main focus of your business.

The Crime and Courts Bill will return to the House of Lords in the next stage of ‘Ping Pong’ later today (Main Chamber, 2.30pm).

Also see:

• Patrick Smith’s commentary on some of the detail at the MediaBriefing
• UK Supreme Court Blog for the other provisions of the Crime and Courts Bill
• Media Reform Coalition: Blogs are be exempted now – but does the new wording work?

If any experts on micro-businesses and media organisational structures are reading, your thoughts on exemptions for individual titles and companies would be welcome.

Update: DCMS has updated its flowchart on Flickr to clarify the ‘publisher’ bit of ‘relevant publisher’:

Update 23/04/13, 10.41am
We have clarified the wording in the introduction following user feedback. Formerly read: ‘Relevant publishers are the newspapers and newspaper-like publications…’
Now reads: ‘Relevant publishers produce the newspapers and newspaper-like publications…’