Page 113 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
Failure to comply with the DPA can result in an enforcement notice, which may include the
deletion of all material stored in a database. Failure to comply with a notice is a criminal
offence. Any person whose data has been compromised can sue for compensation.

4.5 Reporting restrictions

Producers and publishers must ensure that any new media publication does not breach
reporting restrictions such as a postponement order under Section 4(2) of the Contempt of
Court Act 1981, an anonymity order under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981,
or one of the several other orders that restrict the publication of material arising out of legal
proceedings.

Although one of the functions of the media is to report news stories as they happen it has,
until recently, been relatively easy for the English courts to prevent and control news
coverage by imposing reporting restrictions on the domestic media. However, high profile
news stories in England are frequently the subject of media coverage around the world. In
the past, publication overseas has resulted in ‘leakage’ rendering orders imposing reporting
restrictions virtually useless. The global nature of the Internet and international 24-hour
satellite and cable news channels have increased the risk of pre-trial prejudice and contempt
of court in breach of reporting restrictions. It is now easy to circumvent reporting restrictions
in England by reading about court proceedings in an overseas online newspaper.

The risk posed by global media coverage is twofold: first, that the media in England will
publish the same reports as those published overseas; and second, that jurors will be so
influenced by what they have read on the Internet and seen on the news that the defendant
will not receive a fair trial.

If the media in England publish information subject to reporting restrictions based on stories
broadcast or published overseas they will be in contempt of court and will be subject to
sanctions. However, ‘hard copy’ is much easier for the courts to control than publication on
the Internet. In 1995, reporting restrictions were imposed by the court at the beginning of the
trial of Rosemary West, the notorious murderer. Details of the committal hearing were posted
anonymously on the Internet overseas and subsequently reported by the press in England.

In January 2001, the court attempted to grapple with the issue of publication on the Internet.
The two child murderers of James Bulger sought injunctions against the whole world, an
extremely wide and unusual order, to prevent the publication of confidential information that
might lead to their identification following their release from prison. The court found that
there was a ‘real possibility’ the applicants could be the objects of revenge attacks if
information relating to their identities was made public. It therefore considered an injunction
to be appropriate but expressed concern about the practical difficulties of enforcing such an
injunction because of the risk of publication overseas and on the Internet. The judge
concluded that although an injunction might not be:
76