Press are the eyes and the ears of the public, to whom they report said Lord Bingham (ref.1) and The Public interest is the main priority for a journalist to pursue their inspiration, “the information’s value to society is argued to be particularly high, or potentially so.” (ref.1)McNae also gives that Lord Bingham said that “the proper functioning of a modern participatory democracy requires that the media be free, active, professional and enquiring” and that is as long as when working for the public interest (certain information is valuable to the society).
The press is free in UK and journalism can be therefore called "‘the fourth estate’ - the body of professional who police the criminal justice system and act as the public’s eyes and ears - 'a bloodhound as well as a watchdog' ”. (ref.2) And court reporters exercise watchdog role on the justice system having at the same time not much more than the same rights as citizens of this country protecting them in difficult or controversial situations surrounding some of the reporting techniques.
Thanks to freedom of expression, everyone (including press) in UK has a right to communicate information and ideas. Without this right Democracy wouldn’t exit. Textbooks like McNae give that until 2000 UK had ‘residual’ rights – making people free to do whatever law does not prohibit. Before the constitution embedded from European law the law was set by law-jury trial and the rule against prior restraint. After the European Convention of Human Rights was adopted directly into UK law human rights became codified (incl. Freedom of Expression).
Two provisions in section one of the convention - article 8 (which establishes a right to privacy) and article 10 (which is a right to freedom of expression) are of special concern to journalists. Journalism itself is intimately related to Human Rights and the rule of law in a free society, with free speech and the right of the citizen to express themselves to the public good. (ref.2)
Privacy Act in Convention (Art 8) did not previously exist within UK law but constant changes to adjust UK conventions to Human Rights act led to developments within case law. The case law is the system by which reporters of previous cases and the judges ‘interpretation of the common law can be used as a precedent where the legally material facts are similar’.
For journalists the most important part of the Convention is Article 10 Freedom of Expression thanks to which “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall not include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.” (ref.1)
Journalism and law are closely related professions. "Criminal law such as contempt of court places grave restraint on what journalists can write or broadcast and presents a constant danger of imprisonment or fines. (ref.2) A professional journalist needs to be very familiar with branches of the law. The law is important to journalists not only because it is a fantastic source of news but also it is a constraint on the actions of journalists. Press can see this aim to be of such principle that sometimes the forms of obtaining that information can be questionable (undercover journalism). Within this idea hides the main conflicting idea of obtaining information that is created because of two opposite sections within the European law, Freedom of Expression and the Privacy Act. (ref.2)
Within the law of Defamation, libel and slander “strikes a balance between the media being free to express wrongdoing and individual being able to defend reputation from baseless attacks.” (ref.1) Contempt of Court Act 1981 restricts reporting in the court and this could be also seen as restriction on freedom of expression (recent example: Coroners & Justice Bill 2009 & Counter Terrorism Act 2008, McNae's, ch1.).
Another type of restrictions put on press are so called Injunctions (recent example: Lilly Allen who complaint about press crossing the line and disturbing her right to privacy). Injunctions are “stopping publication when media organisation plans to air matter which an individual argues will breach his/her privacy or duty of confidence owed to it.” (ref.1)
Acting in the Public interest is supported by The Freedom of expression law and Qualified Privilege or Absolute Privilege in certain circumstances. “Under the European Communities Act from 1972 the UK is part of European Union, EU treaties and other EU law are thus part of UK law. “(ref.1) After World War II, Western European nations signed a treaty creating the Council of Europe which was a body that would promote individual freedom, political liberty, and the rule of law.(ref.1) This council’s rules led to a further treaty, The European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECtHR), which includes fundamental laws like right to life, freedom off torture or freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights was created to which individuals can take their case to this court to argue that a signatory nation has failed to protect them from, or to sufficiently compensate them for , a breach of Convention right by a public authority. (ref.1)
The Human Rights Act 1998 that came to force 2 October 2000 increased influences of the Convention and the ECtHR on UK courts because the act integrated the Convention into UK law. The UK does not have a written constitution or "fundamental law". Going back to ancient rules of services of law, in England there is still a common law tradition and the constitution is based on historic documents (eg the Magna Carta); there is also statute law (Acts of Parliament) and case law (the actual decisions made by judges and juries). Case law is a general term used when speaking of sources of law.
CRIMINAL LAW deals with offences against society as a whole (such as murder, violence in general or blasphemy) or offences against another person which - (although they may also be a civil-type dispute between people) are abhorrent to society as a whole. Examples include fraud, dangerous driving, robbery, murder, rape and other types of violence or threatening behaviour. The Crown Court Prosecution (CPS) decides whether the case will be brought to the court.
Few last points to that are certainly worth mentioning are that it is incredibly important for journalists to not only have a wider knowledge about the legal systems and the constitution in the country they are practising their profession at but also to stay alert to challenges from the sides of unreasonable or unlawful restrictions on their freedom. They have to remember that there are two constitutional bulwarks that protect freedom of expression in UK such as jury trial and rule against prior restraint. And last but not least for a journalist to remember is to follow the Code of Ethics that should guide journalists in their work.
“ The issue of alleged wrongful convictions has been inextricably bound up with the UK’s media for the last century. “(...) The media and this important issue have formed a powerful and dangerous partnership. “ Dr Eamon O’Neil (Ref.3)
There are many instances of the press and the issue of wrongful convictions coming together. Conan Doyle. “His two most famous cases involved George Edalji and Oscar Slater: a half-Indian living in England, and a German-Jew living in Scotland. (...) Conan Doyle found himself supporting and publicising both cases widely. The author’s standing and reputation catapulted the cases into the public eye and support for them slowly grew until both were satisfactorily resolved.The involvement of the great writer, the press and the public showed that there was an appetite amongst society for acknowledging that the criminal justice system sometimes gets it wrong and convicts the innocent of crimes they did not commit. (...)" (Ref.3) Canon Doyle’s exposure of the Edalji case helped bring about reform of the justice system itself and contributed to the formation of the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1907.
(...) a notable aspect to Slater case however, was the fact that Conan Doyle was attracted to the case after reading a (...) book written by lawyer named William Roughead, a much overlooked person in the whole saga. It was that humble document, which systematically dismantled the case against Slater, which was the spark that ignited the eventual firestorm.” (Ref.3)
When there is the individual claiming wrongful conviction there is the mystery of the case itself which is served up for public consumption through the press. “There is usually a central victim who readers can also identify with; there is the tantalising possibility that the establishment – in the form of the police and justice system – got it “wrong’ which is always of interest to most open societies; there is the high-profile supporter of the case (...) who adds credibility to the case, redressing the moral balance when dealing with someone the system has already convicted and locked-up; there is the opportunity for wider society to jump onboard (...) all of the aspects that create a great story and attract attention of the public becomes worthwhile. “ (Ref.3) All of these parts from “an attractive package for journalists, editors and readers and therefore it is no wonder wrongful convictions and the press often form an intoxicating marriage.” (Ref.3)
The times that have been famously remembered that have exercise the legal system by miscarriages of justice are shown in a short film called: Reeling in the Years 1974-3, which shows two of the cases that I would like to talk about. The case of The Birmingham Six and the case of The Guilford Four (Ref.12 & 13). The Guildford Four case has been brought to the history and a film has been made ‘In the name of the father’ that has kept this glorious moment of justice winning over in our memories.
In the film Who Bombed Birmingham an example is shown when the outcome of investigative work of journalistic genius becomes heroic was the work of Chris Mullin on the Birmingham Six case. It shows how “a brilliant, exemplary and genuinely imaginative piece of investigative journalism (...) can lead to sections of the tabloid press (...). Only with hindsight can we see that their fight with him wasn’t legal, factual or even journalistic – it was purely political. (Ref.3)
Six men were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment after the bombing in Birmingham in 1970s. IRA seemed to be the instigator but what the IRA insisted was that none of the sentenced six were their members. Two of the public houses were bombed by the IRA, 21 people were killed and 162 injured, 6 people were convicted and had been in prison since 1974. A Granada film is a reconstruction of examining of their case by three journalists since 1985 giving the story of the Birmingham six. The journalists kept on knocking on the doors and they did not give up until the truth won. The journalists noticed inaccuracies to do with the times of interrogation by the police and started questioning the course of the investigation that had put the six men into prison. As we can see on the film, the men were brutally beaten and assaulted. Journalists find a clue in ‘playing cards’ and interview men in prison later they decided to run a simple DNA test that proves that the test carried out on the Birmingham six may have been misleading . (Ref.11)
The journalists see a clue in the fact that the men are severely beaten up on their faces as they can see from the pictures, all six men were abused in prison. Looking into the bombing routine - bombings Chris comes to the conclusion that there were four people responsible for the bombing, 2makers two planters and “we have agreed that you are one of them” says the journalist to one of his interviewees. Chris now needs the planters to make the application for an appeal stronger. Chris finds the guy who put the suitcase with the bomb under the table in the pub and later on he publishes a book ‘Error of judgment’, it doesn’t get men out of the prison but it makes the governing bodies start to question things again (Home office 1986). During the questioning Chris keeps his sources covered fulfilling his journalistic duty. Police says to him that they never said that the imprisoned 6 were members of IRA even though that he knows that in evidence they said that the Birmingham 6 was. Further material is being broadcasted, possibility of the DNA judgment to be wrong and mistreating by the looks of the prisoner’s faces. After two programs had been published and book by Chris Muller, 1987 the case goes into the court of Appeal and the case is investigated again as the case has been taken to the court of appeal. 1987 in court, while being questioned, the police officer denies all the allegation on violence used on the Birmingham six and inaccuracies within the schedule of questioning them but the turning point is when the police woman who has previously given a false statement (because she was being threatened) came back to court and said in front of the judge and jury how she witnessed one of the defendants to be physically assaulted, she also heard what was said “This is what we do to the fucking murdering bustards”(Ref.10). Then the forensic scientist who examined the original samples of the defendants’ DNA is called a witness and his statement proves that his judgment then was wrong. In the meantime Chris Mullin goes to the house of the man who he believes to be ‘the young planter of the bomb’ and challenges him to deny what Chris believes to be true. He says that the six couldn’t tell the police where the bombs were as they didn’t know because it was him who knew it. (Ref.11)
The appeal fails but Chris does not give in. It took until the 1991 for the court to admit that they had the wrong men The Birmingham Six spent 16 years in prison before found not guilty and was released.
“Journalists are ethically bound to investigate any claims of innocence for themselves. They are at the most part, trained not to sign up to anyone’s campaign. They are also trained to be professionally sceptical” which does not mean that they are disinterested but maintaining professional balance of open possibilities to clearly see factual evidence and use them effectively to their best potential. “ (Ref.3) Mullin’s enemies were willing to castigate him in order to annihilate the merest possibility that the public would ever know that the Establishment had wrongfully convicted six Irishmen whose only crime was being who they were in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Lesser journalists would have cracked under the pressure and it is to Mullin’s everlasting credit that his truth did eventually come out.” (Ref.3) In this example “the tabloid newspapers not only published erroneous facts before the trial which could have swayed a jury but they went further and called for capital punishment to be brought back. Reading headlines from that era suggests that the newspaper editors had taken leave of their senses and were happy to urge the readers to literally lynch the accused (and as it turned out innocent) men at the centre of the firestorm.” (Ref.3)
Other more recent examples like Barry George “show that certain sections of the media are still willing to frame the facts in a certain way to suit their preconceived agendas. As Dr Eamon O’Neil admits himself he had plodded around editors more times trying to interest them in possible wrongful convictions stories and the numerous outcomes would be suggestion just to interview gangsters because ‘that’s more glamorous’ and he would be often be told that certain criminals claiming innocence ‘must have done the crime because ‘they look like they are guilty’. (Ref.3)
Other great examples of effective investigative journalism are Ludvic Kennedy's great series of BBC team at Rough Justice or more recent Guardian ‘Justice on Trial’ series was a great work of British investigative journalism and as Eamon points out “socially-engaged journalism at its best. (...) Powerful because it comprehensively conveyed the depth of complexity of wrongful convictions in their entirety.” (Ref.3)
There is always the other side of the coin in getting media involved, as I must point out.
Just like being a solicitor or a judge being an investigative journalist is also a profession and with every profession comes desire of financial award at the end of the investigatory route, it is worth keeping in mind that “press does get on board an alleged miscarriage of justice case and uses its considerable resources to investigate and publish on the case. “ Eamon also admits that the “urge to print a hot story on a miscarriage of justice can often overpower the need to call a lawyer and ask whether immediate publishing was a good idea.” (Ref.3) Also remember that “reporters are now under the greater pressure to produce more articles in shorter times than ever before. Publishers and editors seem to believe in the magical powers of technology to make their journalists be in two places at once and never make mistakes. This means that alleged wrongful conviction cases which demand time and resources to examine, are pushed to one side. “ (Ref.3)
Professional and real journalists like Eamon would always aim to put the fullest version of facts before the reading and viewing public, but there are also other priorities that the journalist have to fulfil. He also emphasises that it is a “fact of life” that it is good “to build a strong and open partnership with the press. He has witnessed himself, as he says, to have the crucial witnesses telling him important facts which they would otherwise have denied or acknowledged of hours before to the police officers, criminal defence lawyers and case staff from the CCRC. As he points out, as a journalist, there is “no legal powers to compel a witness to speak out”.
Sometimes journalists are seen as “the last court of appeal for many of the spectrum of witnesses who want to have their say.” (Ref.3) And last but not least, form of well fulfilled role of journalist makes it the last chance if everything else fails, “then well-placed pre piece can undoubtedly shunt a possible wrongful conviction case forward. (...) So the occasionally light-beam of attention from a journalist can jolt the system into action.” (Ref.3)
To conclude, journalist can of course be of great help to challenge a claim of wrongful conviction and reach their aim of “best obtainable version of truth”, but as Dr Eamon says, stay open to the journalist working on an alleged wrongful conviction sometimes turning up something which challenges your position as it is just like lawyers of defence or prosecution it is their job to dig deep in factual evidence.
References
Ref. 1.McNae's Essential law for Journalists (20th Edition)
Ref. 2. Media law and ethics, notes for week 1 of Media Law and ethics module by Chris Horrie
Ref.3. Claims of Innocence, An Introduction to wrongful convictions and how they might be challenged Michael Naughton with Gabe Tan (2010)
Ref.11) Who bombed Birmingham?
Part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbTqTbmMgkQ
Part2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCGyaS3oPk&feature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpPW2LjkYnE&feature=related
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXMUuyEgbb8&NR=1
Part 6 (which is the following part after part 4 on youtube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XstdO1PY5gQ&feature=related
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu9isCmV-rs&NR=1
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBqyYOjCcQ&NR=1
Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIO0lClllzI&NR=1
Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nY70XT_Muo&NR=1
Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WhtXQo5EC4&feature=related
Ref.12) Reeling in years 1974-3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_OFo7Crigs&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Ref.13) The Guilford Four, In the name of the father : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgUWn0gVpq0&feature=related
