From the latest news and legal developments it is definitely worth mentioning that there has been some significant developments in certain areas that matter to journalists.
As McNae’s gives, the Coroners & Justice Bill 2009, for example (May 2009), the decision has been made that Home secretary can now decide that an inquest can be held without jury, with the reason being to try to stop ‘national security’ matters becoming public. “The Bill had proposed that such non-jury inquest would be presided over by a High Court Justice, not by a coroner, with wide discretion to exclude public reporters." (Ref.1) Critics didn’t like the idea but the Government insisted that “sensitive material” (Ref.1) should be protected from “being made public in inquests” (Ref.1).
Secondly, in February 2009 in High Court Justice decided that a man convicted of three notorious murders some decades ago should not be identified in media reports.
Thirdly, in April 2009 Jack Straw laid statutory instruments before Parliament to amend procedural rules governing family cases in the High Court. County Courts and Magistrate Courts. Reporters can gain admission to family cases in courts, but there is still a power to exclude them (journalists will need an identity card accredited in the UK Press card Scheme). (Ref.1)
Further on, significant change happened on the grounds of Public Order Act from 1986. The House of Lords the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 amended the 1986 Act to “create the offence of stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.” (Ref.1)
More developments saw Section 46 order prevented, Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 “Barrister who was a witness should have anonymity in reports of an assault case (David Graham, head of Lancashire based freelance agency Watsons, barrister was assaulted by a client).
Breach of Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (Confidentiality of jury deliberations), by The Times newspaper (fined £15,000) for reporting in 2007 that a man who was questioning the majority ‘guilty’ verdict, which he had opposed. The man had approached the paper himself. The times quoted him on how jurors took an early vote, as well as on the role played by complicated, medical evidence. He said the disclosures ‘offended against the secrecy of the jury room.’ (The Times, 13&23 May 2009). (Ref.1)
Also from Justice Ministry – libel & internet, what is very important for journalists to remember is that each download of an article accounts for a fresh publication and each publication can give rise to a separate action which should warn all the journalists that also online archives containing defamatory articles leave publishers open to a libel action for much longer if that material is downloaded. (Ref.1) (e.g. Internet Libel Yachting News - publisher not liable for chatroom content)
On the subject of privacy, Home Office have some guidance to aid photography in public places to help to ensure that people are not unnecessary stopped from taking photographs in public places, from recent cases on Privacy, Lilly Allen, singer and the celebrity, to secure a High Court injunction to prevent harassment by photographs or famous and very significant case on Max Mosley libel action against The News of The World, which also represents breach of Privacy. (Ref.1) Also Press Complaints Commission warned that “media reproduction of pictures found on social networking sites-such as facebook could breach the Editor’s Code of Practice, used by the PPC to adjudicate on ethics as well as possible copyright issue and privacy concerning the photographs.
On the subject of Confidentiality/privacy (see also PCC complaints re: privacy) recent cases are for example:
Elton John fails in privacy case against Daily MailEffect is to weaken Caroline ruling and strengthen ability of press to take photos of celebs in public without permission/payment. “A bid by Sir Elton John to prevent the Daily Mail publishing a photograph of him walking with his driver from his car to his London home was rejected by the High Court. If Sir Elton had been successful in obtaining this injunction, it would have completely revolutionised British newspaper and magazine practice. (Ref.1)
Sir Elton had his picture taken by a freelance photographer whilst walking from his Rolls Royce to the front gate of his West London home. He then heard that the Daily Mail was planning to publish the picture, and he applied for an injunction to prevent publication on the ground that it was an unwarranted infringement of his privacy. The picture merely showed him casually dressed, but he complained that it showed his baldness was returning. (Ref.1)
In his application, Sir Elton argued that the photo in question, which was surreptitiously acquired, was taken without consent, made no contribution to any matter of public interest, and its publication would be a breach of the Press Complaints Commission code. He supported his bid with the decision in the European Court of Human Rights case of Von Hannover v Germany [2004] ECHR, which involved Princess Caroline of Monaco. It was held in this case that her right to a private family life had been violated by sustained paparazzi photography of her and her children.” (Ref.4)
Beckham Nanny/ 'gagging clause' in contract/ confidentiality
“David and Victoria Beckham HAVE failed in a sensational legal attempt to gag the News of the World from publishing accounts of their marriage by former nanny Abbie Gibson.
The Beckhams launched a court bid to prevent the newspaper from publishing revelations from Ms. Abbie Gibson, 27. Lawyers of the showbiz couple applied for an emergency injunction from High Court judge Mr Justice Langley on the grounds of confidentiality. They argued that Abbie had signed a contract guaranteeing that she would not speak out about their lives. But lawyers acting for Abbie Gibson and the News of the World convinced the judge that out story was manifestly in the public interest. The court decided the News of the World IS entitled to publish Abbie's account about the real state of the Beckhams' marriage and David's affairs. The News of the World, represented by Richard Spearman QC, was given the green light to publish.” (Ref.5)
Other cases like: Section 10 HRA gives no protection to censorship effect of huge Naomi Campbell legal costs (10/05) Naomi Campbell drugs case/ conditional fee agreement/ costs; Caroline ruling strengthened by gay parade case, Hello! wins back £1million damages/ latest in Zeta-Jones saga; Zeta-Jones case - full set of reports from the Guardian' . Naomi Campbell: Law Lords find in her favour : Naomi Campbell case - full coverage from The Guardian
Princess Caroline of Monaco - significant in area of Confidentiality that I write about in my other blog post titled: Max Mosley, Catherine Zeta Jones and other cases - celebrities and privacy – see more here http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2010/11/max-mosley-catherine-zeta-jones-and.html (Ref.3)
Following cases on Privacy PCC released a report ON SUBTERFUGE AND NEWSGATHERING (Phone taps 'completely unacceptable' - PCC (08/06)) The Press Complaints Commission has conducted an investigation into the use of subterfuge by the British newspaper and magazine industry, with particular reference to phone message tapping and compliance with the Editors’ Code of Practice and the Data Protection Act” (ref.6) following the convictions in January 2007 of News of the World.
Journalist Clive Goodman and inquiry agent Glenn Mulcaire case on offences under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and Criminal Law Act (1977). They had speculatively tapped into private mobile phone messages and used the information they discovered for stories in the News of the World.” (Ref.6) This type of snooping has no place in journalism, and the Chairman of the Commission has publicly deplored it on a number of occasions. The Commission as a whole condemns such behaviour. (Ref.6). Despite the police inquiry, court case and convictions, the Commission considered that there were a number of outstanding questions that arose under the Code of Practice, which sets out the required professional standards for UK journalists and, as such, supplements the law (...) .(Ref.6)
“On January 26 2007, Mulcaire and Goodman were sentenced to 6 and 4 months in prison. Mr Coulson resigned his post, saying that he had “decided that the time has come for me to take ultimate responsibility for the events around the Clive Goodman case”. Mr Colin Myler was appointed editor in his place.” (Ref.6)
“Despite Mr Myler’s appointment, the question arose whether the PCC should ask Mr Coulson to give an account of what had gone wrong. The PCC decided not to do so. Given that the PCC does not - and should not - have statutory powers of investigation and prosecution, there could be no question of trying to duplicate the lengthy police investigation. Furthermore, Mr Coulson was, following his resignation, no longer answerable to the PCC, whose jurisdiction covers journalists working for publications that subscribe to the self-regulatory system through the Press Standards Board of Finance.” (...) This report is therefore concerned with two main subjects: events at the News of the World in relation to Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, how the situation developed and how repetition will be avoided; and what the industry as a whole is doing to ensure that lessons have been learned from this incident so that British journalism is not brought into similar disrepute in the future. “ (Ref.6)
New rule on reporting suicide, Journalists are to be issued with new rules governing reporting of suicides, in an attempt to prevent "copycat" deaths prompted by publicity, the article was published on 29 June 2006 (Ref.7)
The Press Complaints Commission has changed its code of practice to warn against printing "excessive" detail about the method used for a suicide. The commission's regulations already demanded cases were reported with sympathy and discretion. The latest move came after consultation with the charity Samaritans. “(Ref.7) In that article, ‘Mr Hinton said excessive detail would be avoided "unless it is in the wider public interest to give the information". (...) Mr King said sensationalised reporting could be "genuinely harmful". ‘(Ref.7)
In the area of Libel and defamation:
Britney Spears fails in $10 million libel claim (case in USA), the article, published on October 17th, 2005 in the magazine's "Hot Stuff" column, claimed that Spears and her husband, fearing the repercussions of the release of a secret sex tape, went to their estate planning lawyers. Spears then allegedly gave a copy of the tape to the lawyers on September 30th, 2005. US Weekly claimed that the lawyers who watched the tape reported that Spears and her husband were "acting goofy the whole time" during the video. Spears, after requesting a redaction that was subsequently refused, filed the lawsuit, stating:"There was no laughter, disgust or goofy behavior while watching the video in the company of lawyers because they did not watch any video, and because there is no such video.” Her lawsuit was subsequently struck down by California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which US Weekly invoked to defend the publication. US Weekly’s successful use anti-SLAPP, claiming that Spears filed the lawsuit as a method of intimidation, has been the source of much criticism. (...) Indeed, with the anti-SLAPP defense in their back 3 pockets, tabloid publishers may feel empowered to publish articles whose content straddles the line of malicious.
Tabloids, a multi-million dollar industry, should not be authorized to seek recourse through California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Affording tabloids the opportunity to raise anti-SLAPP as a defense can disturb the relational agreements between celebrities and tabloids, whose function can serve to stifle litigation at the onset of disputes through an unspoken understanding of each party’s interests. Furthermore, a defamation claim against such prosperous corporate defendants, who publish stories based on public curiosity rather than political debate, does not have a “chilling” affect on their First Amendment rights within the meaning of the statute.
Finally, by effectively freezing the discovery process, celebrities may be unable to prove the element of malice. By outlining the origin and intended scope of California’s anti-SLAPP statute, these declarations become apparent.” (Ref.8)
Sheridan v News International
“Thomas Sheridan v News Group Newspapers Ltd. is a civil court case brought by Tommy Sheridan against the publishers of the News of the World, which began in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, on 4 July 2006. He alleged that the News of the World defamed his character through a series of articles in their publication.” (Ref.9)
“The jury heard allegations that Sheridan had visited "swingers'" clubs in Sheffield and Manchester and had engaged in an adulterous affair with another woman. Sheridan, who claims to be teetotal was also alleged to have drunk champagne during an extramarital liaison. Sheridan denied these allegations.” (Ref.9)
On 28 July, the News of the World editor, in evidence, confessed that the newspaper had changed parts of their story. This followed earlier evidence where the newspaper's journalist Anvar Khan admitted that parts of her story had been sensationalised to help sell her book. She altered her story admitting that the alcohol, drugs and spanking had been added.
National Union of Journalists Scottish Organiser Paul Holleran admitted advising both Anvar Khan and Tommy Sheridan, both of whom were NUJ members on opposing sides during the case, though only Khan was primarily a journalist. Under questioning, Holleran admitted to having passed on details of confidential discussions with Ms Khan - also an NUJ member - to Sheridan to assist Sheridan's case against the News of the World. The verdict was, that Tommy Sheridan had been defamed. The News of the World was ordered to pay damages of £200,000. However, this was not paid to Sheridan as the News of the World's editor Bob Bird immediately announced the newspaper intended to appeal the verdict on the basis it implied "eighteen independent witnesses came to this court and committed monstrous acts of perjury". (Ref.9) On August 2006 article “Tommy Sheridan has won his defamation case against the News of the World” was published on the BBC website. (...) Speaking outside the Court of Session after the verdict was delivered on Friday, the Glasgow MSP delivered an emotional and political speech. He said: "We have over the last five weeks taken on one of the biggest organisations on the planet with the biggest amount of resources to pay for the most expensive legal teams to throw nothing but muck against me, my wife and my family. "Today's verdict proves working class people can differentiate the truth from the muck. “ ‘ (Ref.10)
McKenna case - cross examination (good detail about the type of arguments used in these cases) BBC published an article, ‘A Daily Mirror newspaper article claimed hypnotist Paul McKenna was a fraud had made him a "laughing stock"’, that was what was heard by the High Court was told. The 42-year-old TV hypnotist disputes an October 2003 article, which mentioned his "bogus degree" from Lasalle University, Louisiana. McKenna's self-help business now has an annual turnover of £2.5 million. (...) McKenna was cross-examined on Wednesday by John Kelsey-Fry QC for the newspaper, which denies libel and pleads justification. (...).’ (Ref.11)
Eventually, has been cleared by the High Court of turning a man who took part in his live stage performance into an "aggressive schizophrenic". The High Court in London ruled that Christopher Gates, who sued Mr McKenna for £200,000 in damages, had not proved that he was affected by the experience of acting as a volunteer from the audience.(...) ” (Ref.12)
McKenna has also won damages from Mirror over claims of faked degree. Hypnotist Paul McKenna has won his High Court libel action over a newspaper claim that he bought a fake degree. ‘This time he “disputed a Daily Mirror article in October 2003 which said he had a "bogus degree" from La Salle University, Louisiana. McKenna, who also runs a self-help business, claimed he was "pilloried" by journalist Victor Lewis-Smith on around 10 occasions from 1997.’ (Ref.13)
As a result, McKenna ‘was awarded his costs in the action and the judge ordered the newspaper to pay interim costs of £75,000. (...) "Whether it is appropriate to characterise it as scholarship worthy of academic recognition is another matter. No doubt many would think not. "But one thing which is entirely clear to me is that Mr McKenna to this day does not believe it was bogus or that he misled anyone in allowing himself to be referred to as a PhD."’ (Ref.13)
Ashley Cole wins libel (jigsaw type identification) in 'gay orgy' case
News of World. Pink news published an article: The Sun apologises for Ashley Cole “gay orgy” stories. (Ref.14) “A second newspaper has apologised regarding reports wrongly claiming England and Arsenal defender Ashley Cole and Choice FM’s DJ Mastertepz were involved in a gay orgy. The Sun echoed its sister paper, The News of the World, with a retraction today after publishing a series of articles between the 12th and 19th of February 2006 accompanied with pixelated photographs of Mr Cole and the radio DJ Masterstepz (Ian Thompson) although neither party was named.
The Sun also ran a picture of Cole and his fiancée, Girls Aloud singer Cheryl Tweedy, with the headline, “Ashley’s got a good taste in rings,” alluding to alleged sex acts using vibrating mobile phones. (...) “ (Ref.14) As it is given further in the same article,’“There is no truth whatever in these allegations. Ashley Cole will not tolerate this kind of cowardly journalism or let it go unchallenged.” (Ref.14)
The apology: “We are happy to make clear that Mr Cole and Masterstepz were not involved in any such activities.“We apologise to them for any distress caused and we will be paying them each a sum by way of damages.”’ (Ref.14) “It follows an apology from the Daily Star last March, in a case which showed how the internet can be used for jigsaw identification and provided a landmark example of the use of libel laws when an individual is unnamed.” (Ref.14)
Galloway wins Saddam libel case - Daily Telegraph's Reynold's type defence fails
MP George Galloway has won £150,000 in libel damages from the Daily Telegraph over claims he received money from Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.
“The Glasgow Kelvin MP had denied ever seeking or receiving money from Saddam Hussein's government, which he said he had long opposed. The newspaper said it was in the public interest to publish the claims, based on documents found in Baghdad. A Telegraph spokesman said the judgment was "a blow to the principle of freedom of expression in this country". The newspaper was refused permission to appeal although it can apply to the Court of Appeal direct to take the case further. Following publication in April 2003, an investigation was begun by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
He added: "When we published the documents we did so believing that their contents were important, should be made public and would in due course be investigated by the proper authorities." (Ref.14)
The judge said that although Mr Galloway was interviewed by telephone on 21 April, he was not given an opportunity to read the Iraqi documents beforehand, and neither were they read to him. The reporter who contacted him, Andrew Sparrow, only summarised the claims relating to funding of the Mariam Appeal, but did not tell him the newspaper was planning to publish claims about personal enrichment, the judge said. "[Mr Galloway] did not therefore have a fair or reasonable opportunity to make inquiries or meaningful comment upon them before they were published." ‘ Ref.14
And finally - Freedom of expression/ criminal libel:
Roman Polanski vs Vanity Fair magazine
The Oscar-winning film director Roman Polanski has won £50,000 in libel damages after successfully suing Vanity Fair magazine over an allegation he said made him appear "callously indifferent" to the memory of his murdered wife Sharon Tate.
A high court jury today found in favour of the director of Rosemary's Baby, Tess and The Pianist, who sued over an article in the glossy magazine alleging he tried to seduce a Scandinavian model on his way to Tate's funeral by claiming he could make her "another Sharon Tate". (Ref.15)
The article claimed Polanski had tried to seduce a "Swedish beauty" in the fashionable New York restaurant bar Elaine's, delivering a "honeyed spiel" as he slid his hand between her thighs and promised to turn her into "another Sharon Tate". (Ref.15)
Giving evidence by videolink from Paris at the start of the four-day libel trial, Polanski said the Vanity Fair allegation was an "abominable lie" that made him appear "callously indifferent" to his wife's memory.
Polanski won permission from the House of Lords to testify from France because he feared he that if he set foot in Britain he would be arrested and extradited to the US, where he has been wanted since 1977 for having sex with an underage girl. (...) becoming the first claimant in a libel trial to give evidence by videolink. Costs in the case are estimated at around £1.5m and today the judge made an interim costs award of £175,000 to Polanski.(Ref.15)
References:
Ref.1) McNae’s essential law for journalists (Twentieth Edition) Banks, D. Hanna, M. (2009)
Ref.2) Notes from the Media Law section on Winchester Journalism site for third year ba students (updates, year 3, BA Journalism 2010) week 9 http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=102 & and with the assistance of the Periodical Publishers' Association's public domain website. The Media Law database at Guardian Unlimited
Ref.3) Media Law Lecture ba Journalism, year 3, week 10 & 11
Ref.4) http://www.asklawyers.info/media-law--privacy--elton-john--failed-injunction-296911.html
Ref.5) http://www.gambling911.com/Beckham-Nanny-Abbie-Gibson.html
Ref.6) http://www.pcc.org.uk/assets/218/PCC_subterfuge_report.pdf
Ref.7) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5126024.stm
Ref.8) http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=amanda_searle
Ref.9) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheridan_v_News_International
Ref.10) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5246378.stm
Ref.11) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5175958.stm
Ref.12) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/150850.stm
Ref.13) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5223454.stm
Ref.14) http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-1812.html/
Ref.15 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4061165.stm
