Lesson 8: Journalists and the Law
Give concise answers to the following questions:
1) What restrictions exist on identifying young people in:
a) youth courts;
b) adult courts?
Firstly, it is important to understand how the law differentiates a child, young person, or an adult.
Under the Children and Young Person Act 1933, ‘a child’ is considered as being between the ages of 10-13 years old. Those aged between 14-17 are considered as ‘young people’.
These cases will be heard in a youth court where several reporting restrictions are in place under Section 49 of the Act.
Journalists cannot report any information that could identify a witness or a defendant that is under the age of 18.
This includes the naming of individuals, the school they attend, the address of where they live or photographs and descriptions that could reveal their identity.
Journalists reporting from a youth court are allowed to state a young person’s age and the name of the town or city in which they reside.
It is also possible to state the young person’s job title, however the journalist must not report in a way that could assist in the identification of the subject.
There are occasions when Section 49 of the CYP 1933 Act can be lifted. However, this is generally due to the need to trace violent or persistent young offenders who may do harm to others.
Defendants aged 18 years or over are considered adults. These cases are heard in an adult court and therefore are not subject to the same reporting restrictions.
However, when adult court proceedings involve a young person or child then a journalist is still bound to the same reporting restrictions.
Journalists cannot identify a defendant, victim or witness until they are 18 years old under Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal evidence Act 1999.
It should be said that this does not include victims of sexual offences. The Sexual Offences Act 1992 protects victims from being identified by court reporters for life.
2) A newspaper publishes photographs of a celebrity couple taken in the following circumstances:
a) a picture of the couple enjoying a candlelit anniversary meal in a local restaurant;
b) a long-lens picture of the couple walking hand-in-hand on a public beach;
c) a long-lens picture of the pair, with the woman sunbathing topless on the balcony of her holiday home.
What arguments would the Independent Press Standards Organisation consider in adjudicating a subsequent claim for intrusion into privacy under Clause 2 of the Code of Conduct?
Firstly, IPSO will judge that the photographers – one of which was probably in the restaurant - have broken clause two by photographing the couple without their consent.
Although a beach or a restaurant is a public place, it is reasonable to suggest that the celebration of an anniversary is private and personal.
Any intrusion into their lives in these moments would not have been welcome.
By publishing these pictures, the newspaper is likely to have breached the couple’s entitlement to a family life.
However, IPSO may judge this differently if the celebrity couple have made similar pictures available to publicise themselves in the past.
In this case, editors could argue that the nature of the pictures are no different to the type of content they use themselves.
The newspapers could argue that the only difference is that the couple don’t own the copyright and aren’t in control of how their image is used.
IPSO would also have to make a judgment on whether the publication of the images is really in the public interest.
A celebrity couple eating a meal in a restaurant or walking along a beach is not going to be deemed important enough to break Clause 2 privacy laws under the code of conduct.
A long lens picture of the couple, with the woman sunbathing topless at home would undoubtably breach Clause 2.
IPSO would consider this an invasion of the celebrity couple’s private and family life as it occurred when they were at home and therefore are entitled to privacy.
The photographing without consent will be a major problem for the newspaper in this scenario due to the nature of the image and the unethical means of which they were taken.
There would be few arguments or defences that IPSO would consider from the newspapers in this instance.
3) You have a story scheduled for publication tomorrow, which includes a detailed description of a man the police wish to trace in connection with a string of burglaries. You get a call from the police this afternoon telling you they have now arrested and charged a man in connection with the offences.
a) can you publish your original story?
b) What information, if any, would you be able to print?
The police regularly seek the help of the media when trying to trace suspects. This can include several details of the person including detailed descriptions or still photographs.
However, once a person has been arrested and charged, my original report wouldn’t be able to be published in full.
This is because a criminal case has now become active under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
My report would not be able to include my detailed description of the suspect. In doing so I could infringe the defendant’s right to a fair trial or prejudice how the case is heard in court.
My report would not be able to use language that suggests the man, previously wanted, and now being held by police, is guilty or include new information regarding his past.
To do so would put me at risk of being in contempt of court and help prejudice a jury. I could also expose myself to libel or defamation laws.
My new report would only be able to report facts of what happened. For example, that the police have arrested and charged a man for a string of burglaries.
I can report on the number of burglaries but not the locations or details of how the accused did them. This information is not to be disclosed until trial.
4) A commercial photographer sends a newspaper a wedding picture 'with compliments' asking for an acknowledgement if it is used on the paper's weddings page. The picture has been sent with the permission of the bride's father, who ordered the wedding photographs. The newspaper publishes the picture and files it. Ten months later, the bride is killed in a boating accident and the paper publishes the picture again. What is the position under the law of copyright with regard to:
a) the newspaper;
b) the photographer;
c) the bride's father?
In this case, the newspaper has only been given permission to use the photograph of the woman on her wedding day and in the context of the image being used on a wedding page.
The newspaper wouldn’t be able to make a defence of innocent infringement of copyright as they would have got permission from the commercial wedding photographer for its original use.
Since the newspaper has not been given permission to re-use the image - ten months after and in a report of her death - it is unlikely that they have a defence when it comes to copyright laws.
The commercial photographer holds the copyright as they took the picture on the bride’s wedding day.
While the photographer originally asked for an acknowledgement for the original article, they would be entitled to payment if it is re-published.
As the newspaper hasn’t given notice or permission for re-publishing the image in this way, the photographer could seek damages for unauthorised use of copyright material under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
The bride’s father could also claim against the newspaper under the 1988 Moral Rights Act.
Although the father doesn’t own the copyright, he only commissioned the photograph in the context of the bride’s wedding.
As he wasn’t consulted for the same image being used to discuss events surrounding her death, he could seek compensation for its unauthorised publication.
5) A junior reporter has filed the following report for publication and says there was no mention in court of any reporting restrictions. What changes would you make to the copy – and why?
The original report
A teenage cinemagoer told a court today how he saw a bearded man sitting in the front row indecently assaulting a terrified young girl soon after the main film started.
Fred Merton, 15, of Westfield Terrace, Melford, a pupil at St Saviour's school, said in evidence at Newtown Magistrates Court that he saw the man fondle the girl.
The girl protested but was told to be quiet by people around her who did not realise what was happening. But eventually the cinema manager was called and the man was arrested.
Lawson Pickering, 42, of Central Avenue, Newtown, denied the assault on 13- year-old Sandra Spacek at the Palace Cinema in Melford. He was found guilty and fined £500.
The changes
A teenage cinemagoer told a court today how he saw a bearded man sitting in the front row indecently assaulting a terrified young girl soon after the main film started.
The 15-year-old said in evidence at Newtown Magistrates Court that he saw the man fondle the girl.
The girl protested but was told to be quiet by people around her who did not realise what was happening.
Eventually the cinema manager was called, and the man was later arrested by the Police.
Lawson Pickering, 42, of Central Avenue, Newtown, denied the assault on a 13-year-old at the Palace Cinema in Melford. He was found guilty and fined £500.
Why would I make these changes?
Even if the junior reporter claims that the court didn’t mention any reporting restrictions, they must be wary of naming victims or witnesses that are under 18 years of age.
If this report was published it would have breached sections 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal evidence Act 1999
The reporter would have also breached Section 49 of the Children and Young Person Act 1933 by including the young witness’s address and the school he attended.
As this case would have included indecent conduct of a sexual nature to a young child, the reporter is likely to have breached the Sexual Offences (amendment) act 1992.
Under this law, journalists must not identify the victims of sexual offences for as long as they live.
Another possible change would be to make clear that the defendant was arrested by the police, not the cinema manager.
The change in language may seem trivial and obvious to the reader, but it also downplays the role of the cinema manager in attending to the initial incident.
After finding out what happened, the cinema manager then called the police.
A possible final change would be to identify whether the defendant was fined by the court or ordered to pay compensation to the victim.
Although the original report mentions no physical injuries to the victim, I suspect that the incident would have a long-lasting effect.
I am, however, wary that I could be inserting my distaste at the sentence rather than reporting on the facts of what happened in court.
6) A sports report says a well-known international rugby referee "opted out of making difficult decisions" when it came to dealing with players fighting on the pitch. "He earns a match fee and should have had the courage to send them off, but bottled out," the report adds. Where's the legal danger?
The journalist should report the facts. In this case, the referee has made a mistake in not sending off the players for fighting.
The legal danger in this scenario is that the journalist’s quote has maliciously questioned the referee’s character and implied that he must have had a motive rather than a case of human error.
As a result, the reporter has left themself vulnerable to the defamation acts of 1996 and 2013.
While the newspaper could claim that the reporter has the right to express an opinion on the incident, they are unlikely to be able to use a defence of improper motive due to the language used.
The article could be judged as libelous as the referee could prove that the article damaged his reputation within rugby.
This could easily be argued as players, clubs, pundits and supporters could adopt the same opinion when the referee officiates other matches.
Their ability to officiate matches could also become harder if they are subjected to ridicule or abuse from these groups.
Finally, if this led to the referee being demoted to lower profile matches then it is also likely to impact on their financial earnings.
