Page 199 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
If disclosure is necessary under compulsion of law
If disclosure is reasonably necessary in the public interest
If disclosure is reasonably necessary for fulfilling the recipient’s duties to other
persons, or
If disclosure is reasonably necessary for protecting or pursuing the recipient’s
rights against other persons.
(Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel v Mew (1993))

9.15.2 Inquests
Inquests are held in open court unless the coroner orders that it is in the interest of national
security to exclude the public (Coroners Rules Statutory Instrument 1984 552 Rule 17). The
decision of the coroner can be challenged by judicial review.

There is no statutory right to be informed of the details of a forthcoming inquest. However,
a Home Office circular (Number 53/1980) urges coroners to make suitable and formal
arrangements to ensure that the media, particularly local newspapers, are properly informed
of all inquest arrangements, including the date, time and place of any formal resumption of
an adjourned inquest.

Rule 37 of the Coroners Rules allows a coroner to receive documentary rather than oral
evidence from any witness. The Rule provides that coroners must announce publicly at the
inquest the name of the person giving documentary evidence and a brief account of the
document.

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies to inquests. For the purposes of the strict liability
rule under Sections 1 and the 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (see Chapter 10), an
inquest is ‘active’ as soon as it has been opened even if the opening was a formality and the
proceedings were then adjourned indefinitely.

9.15.3 Employment tribunals

The media can freely attend and report on hearings before employment tribunals and the
employment appeal tribunal, unless the tribunal considers that a private hearing is
appropriate on the following grounds:

National security
Disclosure would lead to contravention of a prohibition imposed by legislation
Disclosure would otherwise break a confidence
Disclosure would cause substantial injury to the employer’s undertaking
A witness would be seriously prejudiced.

(Employment Tribunals Act 1996; Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (Constitution and Rules
of Procedure) Regulations 2001))
162