Reporting restrictions, combined with the judicial notion of strict liability, which affect the average conduct of journalists in court cases prior to the actual instance of trial, for example preliminary procedures like mode-of-trial hearings, seem to be some form of legislative overkill; the kind of restraint enforced by censorship statutes like section 8 of the Magistrate's court act evokes a sense of bureaucratic overbearingness. From what is written in McNae's guide to journalistic law, it appears safe to say that, in light of the direction restrictions are pointing in, that the overall perceived influence of journalist and media publications is seemingly manipulative and effective in plying changes to a court scene.
The word 'prejudice' (implying the term 'pre-justice') is used frequently to describe the inadmissibility of reported mistakes based on a situation in court, and the circumstances of the offender on trial, as well as those others involved, i.e. prosecution witnesses. It is noted that from the time of criminal charging, or even arrest, the case is therewith active and therefore the material published in due course following the effect of arrest and/or charge is subsequently a risk to the process and personal right to fair trial. Items of interest in the court's eyes, such as the presumption of innocence, can be tampered with, if only inadvertently, by the publication of media material that might, in any conceivable way, pervert the course of justice. This could be as simple as misspelling a defendant's surname, and could incur expensive and time-consuming libel proceedings thereafter (that is if the accused or other deems such extensions of the court's time worth pursuing).
The crux of reporting restrictions and the Contempt of Court act 1980 is at the heart of a typical trial, in the position of the jurors, who, as is implied within McNae's, are almost unalterably susceptible to whatever contemporaneous information might weave its way into some form of media publication, mainly news-based. The rule of impartial judgement posed by the jury is one of strict obedience to the case at hand, and as of this rule, there can be no predetermination of the offender's legal status, e.g. information pertaining to a previous conviction or open offence could serve as a tweak to the opinions of some of the jury members. It is from this knowledge that one can tentatively refer to the jury as a blank canvas gallery, an erstwhile unswayed group of portraits just waiting to be opinionatedly painted by the events about to take place during trial. This theory connects to the lay identity of jury members, who will usually be as ordinary as the defendent(s) they will be observing; it also adds to some of the potential stresses a journalist might find in freely following a court story from the beginning, leaving the prospect of an actual trial the best bet for a safer reporting environment.
The word 'prejudice' (implying the term 'pre-justice') is used frequently to describe the inadmissibility of reported mistakes based on a situation in court, and the circumstances of the offender on trial, as well as those others involved, i.e. prosecution witnesses. It is noted that from the time of criminal charging, or even arrest, the case is therewith active and therefore the material published in due course following the effect of arrest and/or charge is subsequently a risk to the process and personal right to fair trial. Items of interest in the court's eyes, such as the presumption of innocence, can be tampered with, if only inadvertently, by the publication of media material that might, in any conceivable way, pervert the course of justice. This could be as simple as misspelling a defendant's surname, and could incur expensive and time-consuming libel proceedings thereafter (that is if the accused or other deems such extensions of the court's time worth pursuing).
The crux of reporting restrictions and the Contempt of Court act 1980 is at the heart of a typical trial, in the position of the jurors, who, as is implied within McNae's, are almost unalterably susceptible to whatever contemporaneous information might weave its way into some form of media publication, mainly news-based. The rule of impartial judgement posed by the jury is one of strict obedience to the case at hand, and as of this rule, there can be no predetermination of the offender's legal status, e.g. information pertaining to a previous conviction or open offence could serve as a tweak to the opinions of some of the jury members. It is from this knowledge that one can tentatively refer to the jury as a blank canvas gallery, an erstwhile unswayed group of portraits just waiting to be opinionatedly painted by the events about to take place during trial. This theory connects to the lay identity of jury members, who will usually be as ordinary as the defendent(s) they will be observing; it also adds to some of the potential stresses a journalist might find in freely following a court story from the beginning, leaving the prospect of an actual trial the best bet for a safer reporting environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment