Page 207 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
person who committed the crime is likely to be objectionable. This is because the court is of
the view that the question of whether the defendant committed the crime is for the jury, and
not the media or the public.

In recent years it has become the practice of some sections of the media to publish prejudicial
material immediately proceedings become active. These media companies are prepared to
take the risk of a prosecution for contempt because, in most cases, the longer the period of
time between publication and hearing the less likely there will be a ‘substantial risk of
serious prejudice’.

However, in 1997 the News of the World was found to be in contempt of court by publishing
prejudicial information the day after an arrest had been made. The case involved a ‘sting’ in
which the newspaper’s journalists set up and recorded criminals producing counterfeit
currency. The day before publication of the feature, the newspaper tipped off the police and
the suspects were arrested. The headlines the following day said ‘We smash £100 million
fake cash ring’. The court held that published material was prejudicial. Because the
proceedings were active by the time the newspaper went to press, the court convicted the
newspaper of contempt (A-G v Morgan (1998)).

Arrest
Those in the media must exercise caution and restraint in coverage of arrests. While it will
normally be unobjectionable to report the fact of the arrest, the name of the person held and
general background about the suspect and the crime, other matters such as facts linking him
with the crime should not be published. Even information provided by the police at a press
conference following arrest can amount to a contempt. In 1995, the BBC broadcast
information given by the police at a press conference, which included details of the
defendant’s previous convictions. Although the defendant had been charged with unrelated
matters, the BBC was held to be in contempt and was fined.

Although the same principles apply the situation may appear to be different where
information is provided to the media by the arrested person himself. In August 2001, Neil
and Christine Hamilton were arrested in connection with alleged sexual offences against a
woman. They were cautioned and released on bail pending further investigation.
Immediately following their release, the Hamiltons decided to ‘go public’. They gave several
press interviews in which they denied the offence and gave a detailed account of their
whereabouts on the day of the alleged offence, producing documentary evidence to the media
that they claimed showed they were elsewhere at the time. Huge media coverage ensued,
with the Mail on Sunday even taking the unprecedented step of publishing a verbatim
transcript of the police interview with the Hamiltons. In such unusual circumstances, the
media may be prepared to publish prejudicial material on the assumption that prosecution is
less likely where the material has been provided by the arrested person himself.

Problems can arise when a person is arrested but charges do not follow within a reasonable
time. Suspects are frequently arrested and then later released from police custody without
170