KIERAN FAGANreports from a recent meeting of the Society of Editors which focused on press freedom in a democratic society
BRITAIN’S JUSTICE secretary Ken Clarke has recently given some intriguing hints about changing the law to allow filming in courts. This is currently against the law in both the UK and Ireland.
He said he was not against filming while sentences were being handed down by judges, and was awaiting submissions from interested bodies, before making up his mind to legislate to permit it.
However, Clarke told the Society of Editors, meeting in Runnymede (where Magna Carta was signed in 1215), that he did not wish to allow a situation to develop where juries and witnesses could be intimidated by cameras and microphones.
He bluntly told the gathering of about 400 top editorial executives that the behaviour of sections of the British press which made libellous allegations against Christopher Jefferies following the murder of architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol last December, was “an appalling case, quite appalling”.
A Dutch engineer who was a neighbour of Yeates, Vincent Tabak, subsequently admitted killing her and was convicted of the murder.
Clarke, who also holds the ministerial office of Lord Chancellor, made these remarks “off the cuff” during his keynote speech to the society’s annual conference last month.
He began by insisting that the press must not get "paranoid" despite the current press freedom crisis. As he spoke, the Leveson inquiry into phone hacking was getting under way in London. He commended the Guardiannewspaper which exposed the phone hacking scandal and accused other organisations of not facing the truth.
“A free press is absolutely essential to the kind of society we want to be. We do not want state intervention and control,” Clarke said. He wanted parliament and the press to defend each other and rubbished claims that David Cameron’s government and other politicians were taking reprisals against the media following the exposure of the MPs’ expenses scandal.
He also warned that defamation law can be used to inhibit investigative journalism.
Referring to a draft Bill for defamation reform, which includes a new requirement of substantial harm, Clarke pledged to bring balance to the system.
He added: “We don’t want the inquisition of ludicrous quangos.” However, newspaper self-regulation is not something that newspapers can opt in and out of, he warned.
Associate editor of Sky News Simon Bucks had suggested there could be an optional self-regulation system put in place. Bucks also said it was implied that newspapers who conformed to the regulation guidelines could receive special privileges, but Clarke ruled this out.
Clarke said that self-regulation must apply collectively to the press and each member publication must be subject to the system.
He concluded that a self-regulatory body needs to have more “teeth” and should not allow some members to comply whilst others choose alternatives.
At present Express Newspapers, owned by Richard Desmond, does not take part in the voluntary Press Complaints Commission, although Desmond has said he does not object in principle to statutory regulation of his TV interests, including Channel 5. (Express Newspapers and Independent News and Media jointly publish the Irish Starnewspaper.)
In response to a plea by a representative of the Sunnewspaper, Clarke refused to insert a public interest defence in a recently updated Bribery Act. A reporter at the Sun,Jamie Pyatt, was arrested earlier this month for allegedly paying sources for information.
Clarke said: “Bribery is a crime. You can’t just say, ‘Sorry, public interest, guv’, it has to be investigated. A set public interest defence would imply that bribery is all right.” He explained that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a bribery case against a journalist as it is generally accepted that some stories are obtained illegally.
“We are all subject to the rule of law, and we have brought the Act up to date. Any prosecutor worth their salt knows not to waste public money and the time of the courts, and shouldn’t fly in the face of natural justice.”
Currently there are no proposals to allow the taking of photographs or filming in Irish courts.