Media law news this week was dominated by the Tulisa privacy injunction and the long-awaited judgment in Flood v Times Newspapers. Tulisa used a YouTube video, which has now attracted over 3.5 million views, to “set the record straight” following the leak and publication of a private video.
By PA Media Lawyer
The press needs to lift its game if the principle of open justice is to be maintained, a senior QC has warned.
Part of the rationale for open justice was that it meant that judges were themselves under trial while conducting cases, because of media and public scrutiny, and that the public was educated by reports of what was happening in the courts, said media law and human rights specialist Geoffrey Robertson.
By PA Media Lawyer
The jury system might need to be changed to allow jurors to play a more active part in trials as a result of the advances in technology which brought the internet, micro-blogging and social websites such as Twitter and Facebook, a conference was told.
At present technological advances posed two dangers to trials in criminal cases, said Professor Ian Cram, Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Leeds (left).
It was the thirteenth week of evidence at the Leveson Inquiry. As Natalie Peck reported for Inforrm here, the Inquiry heard from former Times in-house lawyer, Alastair Brett, crime reporters and senior figures from the Metropolitan Police force, including head of press Dick Fedorcio.
The Mirror Group was refused permission by the Supreme Court to appeal its contempt of court conviction for coverage of Christopher Jefferies in 2011. Press Gazette reports here; the Independent reports here. It was reported that the application against the Divisional Court decision was rejected on the grounds “that it did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court…
On Wednesday 29 February 2012, academics, lawyers and journalists gathered to discuss open justice in the digital age at City University London.
The programme included context and history, issues for the media and an academic perspective. Speakers included: Geoffrey Robertson QC; Hugh Tomlinson QC; Heather Brooke, journalist and author; Mike Dodd, editor of PA Media Lawyer; and Professor Ian Cram, Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law, University of Leeds.
On Sunday it was reported that the Scottish lawyer Paul McBride QC, 47, has died in his sleep on a visit to Pakistan. At age 35, he was appointed the youngest ever QC in the UK. Last year he represented Gail Sheridan, who was acquitted of perjury. Two men are currently on trial at the high court in Glasgow…
A quick update on recent open justice themed developments.
The Open Justice UK group has been refused permission to live tweet a case in Scotland, as Cristiana Theodoli (@_cric) explains here. While journalists have applied to tweet and tweeting was allowed during sentencing in the Tommy Sheridan trial last year, not one journalist has gained authorisation to live tweet a full trial, according to Theodoli (specific permission is required for journalists, unlike England & Wales).
Open Justice UK liaised with the Scottish court ahead of the selected trial but:
“Today, just a day or two before the trial is due to start, we received a short email stating that the Judge has a number of concerns that he feels should be taken up at a senior level and the timescale would not allow for it.”
Meanwhile, at a High Court (Chancery division) hearing in London last Thursday (23 February) the Guardian secured access to court documents relating to News International and Glenn Mulcaire.
In an approved judgment released on Monday (27 February), Mr Justice Vos set out the reasons he has allowed the Guardian (“and any other media organisations that request them”) to access redacted documents, including the “generic Particulars of Claim”, “the Notice to Admit” and the “Response”, mentioned at the phone hacking pre-trial review on 19 January 2012. No parties objected to the Guardian’s request to access a fourth document, the “generic list of issues”.
I’ve flagged up a few key parts below.
Mr Mulcaire’s counsel were concerned
“…that reporting of some parts of the 3 documents will create a substantial risk that the course of justice in the further criminal proceedings that Mr Mulcaire may face will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.” [3]
Vos J found:
“There is a distinct and crucial public interest in scrutinising the decision-making process in this case, and in knowing the facts on which the decisions are being made.” [80]
He said:
“it seems to me to be entirely legitimate for GNM and other media organisations to wish to see unredacted copies of the core documents on the basis of which these proceedings have been and are being conducted.” [81]
…
“First, so far as can be judged today, reporting of the parts of the 3 documents that Mr Mulcaire wishes to see redacted would not, with the one exception already mentioned, give rise to a ‘not insubstantial’ risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in Mr Mulcaire’s future trial (if there is one)”… [82]
He concluded that GNM should be provided with unredacted copies of the three documents, save for several stipulated redactions detailed in par 87 (reasons discussed in the judgment).
The judgment discusses the application of the CPR Part 5.4C(2) and the “Open justice availability of documents to non-parties” (CPR Part 5.4C.10).
You can read the judgment in full, below:
HT: @adamwagner1 for alerting me to the published judgment.
Open Justice Week, a Scottish initiative launched by James Doleman and Cristiana Theodoli, has kicked off. The liveliest conversations are in the Facebook group and on Twitter but you can also follow the blog here, which will be tracking people’s experiences of the justice system – in Scotland and beyond.
To mark Open Justice Week, Meeja Law has finally joined Facebook (here) where you will find links and resources about digital media law. On Twitter, you can follow @meejalaw and for automated updates on media law, @medialawUK. Or I’m @jtownend.
For this week’s media law listings (courts, Leveson Inquiry, Parliament and events) please see my latest round up on the Inforrm blog.
On Wednesday 29 February, lawyers, academics, journalists and others will be gathering at City University London to discuss the way forward for open justice in 2012. Speakers at the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism’s ‘Justice Wide Open’ seminar include the journalist and activist Heather Brooke, PA Media Lawyer editor Mike Dodd, Hugh Tomlinson QC and Geoffrey Robertson QC.
The programme is embedded below and more details can be found here. It’s fully booked but you can join the waiting list. If you’d like to be kept informed when the publication is released later in the Spring, please drop me an email: judith.townend.1@city.ac.uk.
Happy Open Justice Week!
This guest post is written by Paul Gibbons, aka FoI Man.
Today (Monday 20th February), a group of us are formally launching a new campaign. As the title of this post suggests, we are campaigning to #saveFOI.
This week sees the beginning of the long heralded post-legislative scrutiny of Freedom of Information promised by the Coalition Government last year. On Tuesday morning, the first witnesses, including the head of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, Maurice Frankel, will be appearing before the Justice Select Committee.
Last week the Committee published the written evidence that it has received. What is striking about this evidence is how many public authorities have called for restrictive amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. Some have called for charging to be introduced. Some have suggested that the cost limit for answering requests should be brought down, so that more demanding requests can be refused. Others have even suggested bringing in whole new exemptions for information that they hold.
This comes hot on the heels of comments from the outgoing Cabinet Secretary Lord Gus O’Donnell who has been openly critical of the Information Commissioner’s decisions in respect of Cabinet minutes. Others will be aware that our former Prime Minister Tony Blair considered himself a “nincompoop” for introducing FOI. There have been plenty of others queuing up in recent months to add their voices of complaint to the chorus of disapproval of this legislation, only 7 years after it came into force.
It is hard to think of another requirement on public bodies that attracts such venom and open hostility. And these views are diametrically opposed to the views of most people outside the public sector who welcome this important tool for holding public authorities to account.
Even some inside Government are suspicious of the motives of the Act’s government critics. The Minister responsible for FOI in the Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, commented in a recent House of Lords debate that:
“…when Prime Ministers and mandarins object, this Act might actually be doing something that it was intended to do.”
And yesterday, writing in the Observer, the Information Commissioner himself made it quite clear where he stands. He dismissed Lord O’Donnell’s criticisms, and dispensed with suggestions from universities that they need a whole new exemption for research data.
Nevertheless, the mood music suggests that there is a desire to contain this young legislative upstart. Some of us even inside the public sector feel very strongly that to do so would be a backwards step. Yes, some individuals abuse the right to access information. Some requests are expensive to answer. It can feel personal when a request affects your work. But the overall benefits, whilst difficult to quantify in hard numbers, far outweigh the problems.
It has forced public authorities to open up in a way that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. It has allowed groups from protesters against library closures to disability rights campaigners to make their case to Government on something approaching an equal footing. It has exposed unfairness and inequality in our country. I believe it is starting to make an impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of some public authorities. In short, it makes the UK a fairer country to live in.
And the UK doesn’t exist in isolation. Countries across the globe are adopting FOI legislation. As Nigeria and the Philippines debate the opening up of their governments, is it right that the UK can be considering reducing the rights of its citizens?
So we are standing up to make the case for FOI this year. And we want as many people as possible to join us. So please take a look at our campaign website and consider how you can help us to #saveFOI.
Paul Gibbons is creator of the FOI Man blog and is @foimanUK on Twitter.
Media law & ethics for online publishers, collected and written by Judith Townend (@jtownend)
Disclaimer: This site contains general information only. This site does not contain legal advice. This site is not responsible for the content of external sites. Enquiries should be made to: jt.townend [at] gmail.com.
media law mix
