 |
Tue
7 Oct 2003, The Scotsman
SO A Sunday tabloid finally put the public out of its misery
by naming the football club associated with a gang rape allegation,
writes Campbell Deane. Just why it took the media so long to
publish the club’s alleged association can be found in
the laws of libel and contempt.
Last week, the attorney general issued a guidance note to the
press stating that he was very concerned that evidence was not
distorted by potential prejudicial reporting. This was despite
the fact that there had not yet been any arrests, and there
may not be any. He went on to remind all editors of their obligations
not to engage in conduct, nor to publish material, including
comment, that may create a substantial risk of serious prejudice.
|
|
This
makes astonishing reading. In essence, the attorney general
is asking the newspapers to back off, or risk possible criminal
proceedings. Quite acceptable, if an individual had been arrested
and charged, but since that is not the case, it can be interpreted
as interference on freedom of expression.
All that would be understandable if it weren’t for the
fact that the government may indeed be the author of its own
misfortune in this matter. It has refused a House of Lords amendment
to the Sexual Offences Bill and has indicated in the Commons
that guidelines will be used to protect individuals who are
being investigated over possible sexual offences. Such guidelines,
in whatever form, are doomed to failure. The industry itself
is governed by a Press Complaints Code that is flouted by the
tabloids and a commission with little or no power to its elbow.
|
|
David
Blunkett has posed the question: "How do we stop the media
reporting something they are determined to report?". The
answer to that is simple.
You either don’t try and allow the libel laws to protect
the accused, or you introduce legislation that allows it to
be done. To legislate by way of guidance and guidelines is an
abrogation of responsibility of government that creates a two-tier
system of justice. Guidance, unless all-encompassing and issued
on every occasion, can lead only to allegations of one law for
the celebrity and another for the man on the street.
You can’t imagine the attorney general intervening when,
for example, a teacher is threatened as being revealed as a
rape suspect by his local paper. But what if the suspect was
a Labour MP?
t |
|
