 |
24th
March 2005, The Scotsman
"STOP the press," is a phrase much loved in the film
industry, but causes editors and lawyers considerable anguish.
The arrival of court papers seeking to halt publication or broadcast
of a story at the 11th hour, when presses or reels are ready
to roll, does not create the most conducive environment for
clear-headed thinking by the courts.
This week, Channel Five had to have an injunction overturned
less than two hours before transmission of a documentary about
a notorious Manchester gangster family.
|
|
Greater
Manchester Police had won an order preventing the documentary
going out after one of the Noonan family was murdered, arguing
that the programme might hinder their investigation and any
criminal proceedings that might follow. But Five had the injunction
overturned on the basis that the information in the documentary
had already been run extensively in newspaper articles. Presenting
rather old news, it appears, is a good defence to injunction.
There are other cases when the courts will grant interdicts
where something is defamatory, but that is much more difficult
now than it used to be with the introduction of the Human Rights
Act and the concept of freedom of expression. This tends to
mean the courts ask the individual to take his chances in the
libel courts. For someone without the resources to restore reputation
in court, or who wants to prevent it being damaged in the first
place, this is not much use.
|
|
There
is now a third route - the development of a law of "privacy"
means that it is possible to obtain interdict where someone
has had his confidence breached. In October 2004, BBC Scotland
were faced with a similar 11th-hour dilemma as Five over a documentary
on, ironically, life in court. A teenager, who claimed she had
been pressurised while drunk into agreeing to be filmed, sought
an order halting the programme, Sheriff Court, arguing her confidence
had been breached. The BBC firmly denied this and argued for
the right to broadcast. After the hearing had lasted all day
the BBC conceded that it would pull the plug on the scheduled
10:35pm screening.
The judge praised them for delaying the broadcast, and a full
hearing will be given later this year.
Given the subject matter was not perishable news, unlike Five
the BBC had the luxury to have the case heard at a later date
|
|
