The British legal system has always mainted that we should not have trial by media and on the whole this is abided by. We can find examples like the Soham murder case which seemed to have slipped through the legal net. Throughout the build up to the trial there was much speculation and evidence discussed in lengthy articles and reports, even Huntley’s previous convictions were common knowledge. There was a court order on the 9th June 2003 banning any reports of anything relating to Huntley but this was again ignored by the media until another amended
order was issued on the 10th June creating a five month embargo of any report revealing or intending to reveal any further information or material surrounding the case. Strangely no media organisation was ever prosecuted over its reporting. But this is rare and on the whole responsible journalists and responsible organisations understand and adhere to reporting restrictions.Earlier this year Lord Falconer told the BBC he believed articles relating to high-profile court cases should be removed from online news archives so as to not prejudice the outcome of trials. This is fraught with problems and probably impossible to police. I think aside from the time it would take for news agencies to trawl through all its archives the cost of doing this it would all be still in vain now that UGC means anyone has access to social network sites and the option of setting up a blog or posting a comment on a message board. It’s not the responsible journalist who is turning the Contempt of Court Act on its head. The law will have to change so that any embargo or simple reporting restrictions would also apply to individuals. With the continual rise of UGC it is difficult to see how this would be policed.
We need only look at the current Baby P case to see the trouble the contempt of court legislation is facing in this web age. Recently a police investigation took place into social networking sites which has allowed its members to post the identities and other information about the accused. A lot of people become angry and frustrated with the media for ‘protecting’ suspects or the accused in such cases. What they do not realise is that all media organisations are bound by the 1981 Contempt of Court Act. What this piece of legislation now needs is to take into account the general public who have full publishing rights 24/7 but who have not been taught about reporting restrictions and are oblivious to the Contempt of Court Act. Maybe if we educate people as to why certain information cannot be reported then people would trust in the media and be more responsible within their own writing. Bob Satchwell’s article expresses some grave concerns over the future of reporting restrictions if things are not ironed out quickly and the internet taken into account.
The British judicial system’s foundations are currently being rocked by this new multimedia web era. It is difficult to see how national legislation can combat an international problem. Hence, I tend to agree with Shane Richard that the 1981 Contempt of Court Act is in serious jeopardy and perhaps no longer fit for purpose given the global village we live in.
