Prosecuting the Media: The DPP’s final guidelines – Alex Bailin QC and Edward Craven | Inforrm's Blog: "The guidelines emphasise the need for “special care” in cases which involve the disclosure of journalists’ sources.
The European Court of Human Rights has highlighted the “potentially chilling effect” on press freedom of the forced disclosure of journalists’ sources (see Goodwin v UK (1996) 22 EHRR 123) and the Grand Chamber in Sanoma Uitgevers BV v The Netherlands [2011] EMLR 4 recently emphasised that source protection “is a cornerstone of freedom of the press, without which sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest”.
In addition, section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides that no court may require a person to disclose the source of information contained in a publication for which they are responsible, unless the court is satisfied that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime." 'via Blog this'
Tuesday, 7 October 2014
Monday, 6 October 2014
Would the paisley pyjamas sting stand up in court?
Would the paisley pyjamas sting stand up in court? | LSE Media Policy Project:
"If the Daily Telegraph had exposed the abuse of parliamentary expenses today, rather than in 2009, it could be prosecuted for purchasing a disc of expense receipts from a public official under either the Data Protection Act or the Bribery Act.
Yet only under the Data Protection Act – which carries much lighter sentences – would the paper have technically been able to mount a public interest defence.
In some cases involving journalists, this means that the ‘defence of necessity’ has to be used to invoke the public interest indirectly. QC’s Alex Bailin and Edward Craven have argued that it is unacceptable that these defences have to be brought by the ‘back door’." 'via Blog this'
"If the Daily Telegraph had exposed the abuse of parliamentary expenses today, rather than in 2009, it could be prosecuted for purchasing a disc of expense receipts from a public official under either the Data Protection Act or the Bribery Act.
Yet only under the Data Protection Act – which carries much lighter sentences – would the paper have technically been able to mount a public interest defence.
In some cases involving journalists, this means that the ‘defence of necessity’ has to be used to invoke the public interest indirectly. QC’s Alex Bailin and Edward Craven have argued that it is unacceptable that these defences have to be brought by the ‘back door’." 'via Blog this'
Three months to save IPSO
Three months to save IPSO – Damian Tambini | Inforrm's Blog: "The newspapers would be well advised to support a stronger IPSO. In time, they may even need to re-assess their position on recognition under the Charter. After all, Parliament has passed the Crime and Courts Act, establishing the legal framework for the Leveson system of press self-regulation to be put into place.
The Act creates a system of incentives: if you fail to join an approved regulatory system, you are likely in due course to be exposed to considerably higher costs and damages in relation to privacy, libel and other legal risks associated with journalism.
As Leveson himself acknowledged, if membership of a self-regulatory body is to confer such privileges on journalists there must be some form of oversight – to ensure the body is not a sham, as many claimed the PCC was. So the Leveson scheme is an ingenious combination of oversight with multiple protections against interference by government.
But the newspapers that support IPSO are not convinced. For them it is the Charter system of recognition that by definition pushes the regulator over the definitional rubicon from self-regulation to government regulation.
Newspapers are also aware that unlike the PCC, IPSO has no monopoly on self-regulation of newspapers.
The Guardian, the FT and the Independent remain outside the tent and IMPRESS; an alternative regulator led by civil society organisations including local news websites, may seek recognition under the Charter. If it is successful, it could trigger the ‘incentives’ (i.e. the end of press protection from damages and costs) under the Crime and Courts Act. Then all newspapers would have to think again." 'via Blog this'
The Act creates a system of incentives: if you fail to join an approved regulatory system, you are likely in due course to be exposed to considerably higher costs and damages in relation to privacy, libel and other legal risks associated with journalism.
As Leveson himself acknowledged, if membership of a self-regulatory body is to confer such privileges on journalists there must be some form of oversight – to ensure the body is not a sham, as many claimed the PCC was. So the Leveson scheme is an ingenious combination of oversight with multiple protections against interference by government.
But the newspapers that support IPSO are not convinced. For them it is the Charter system of recognition that by definition pushes the regulator over the definitional rubicon from self-regulation to government regulation.
Newspapers are also aware that unlike the PCC, IPSO has no monopoly on self-regulation of newspapers.
The Guardian, the FT and the Independent remain outside the tent and IMPRESS; an alternative regulator led by civil society organisations including local news websites, may seek recognition under the Charter. If it is successful, it could trigger the ‘incentives’ (i.e. the end of press protection from damages and costs) under the Crime and Courts Act. Then all newspapers would have to think again." 'via Blog this'
Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881: defining newspaper & proprietor
Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881:
"The word “newspaper” shall mean any paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks or observations therein printed for sale, and published in England or Ireland periodically, or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days between the publication of any two such papers, parts, or numbers.
The word “proprietor” shall mean and include as well the sole proprietor of any newspaper, as also in the case of a divided proprietorship the persons who, as partners or otherwise, represent and are responsible for any share or interest in the newspaper as between themselves and the persons in like manner representing or responsible for the other shares or interests therein, and no other person.
" 'via Blog this'
"The word “newspaper” shall mean any paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any remarks or observations therein printed for sale, and published in England or Ireland periodically, or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding twenty-six days between the publication of any two such papers, parts, or numbers.
The word “proprietor” shall mean and include as well the sole proprietor of any newspaper, as also in the case of a divided proprietorship the persons who, as partners or otherwise, represent and are responsible for any share or interest in the newspaper as between themselves and the persons in like manner representing or responsible for the other shares or interests therein, and no other person.
" 'via Blog this'
Gerry McCann attacks ‘disgraceful’ Sunday Times after £55k libel payout
Gerry McCann attacks ‘disgraceful’ Sunday Times after £55k libel payout | Media | The Guardian: "“This is exactly why parliament and Lord Justice Leveson called for truly effective independent self-regulation of newspapers – to protect ordinary members of the public from this sort of abuse. The fact is that most families could not take the financial and legal risk of going to the high court and facing down a big press bully as we have. That is why News UK and the big newspapers have opposed Leveson’s reforms and the arbitration scheme which is a necessary part of it.”
Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.
The Sunday Times said: “We have agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.”
Much of the industry, with the exception of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, has set up its own regulatory body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which started life three weeks ago.
In the statement, McCann calls Ipso the “latest industry poodle”. The McCanns have been involved in the Hacked Off campaign to tighten press regulation." 'via Blog this'
Carter-Ruck agreed to act on a no-win, no-fee basis, a system threatened by proposed changes to the law. The £55,000 is to be donated to two charities for missing people and sick children.
The Sunday Times said: “We have agreed a settlement with Mr and Mrs McCann.”
Much of the industry, with the exception of the Guardian, the Independent and the Financial Times, has set up its own regulatory body, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which started life three weeks ago.
In the statement, McCann calls Ipso the “latest industry poodle”. The McCanns have been involved in the Hacked Off campaign to tighten press regulation." 'via Blog this'
Friday, 3 October 2014
Sunday Mirror will find it hard to justify its Tory MP honeytrap
Sunday Mirror will find it hard to justify its Tory MP honeytrap | Media | theguardian.com: "Now for the flaws. The pictures of the two women featured in the Twitter trap were used without their knowledge or permission. I suspect that could open the door for them to take legal action
Only Tory MPs were targeted. Why was that? Was there a political motive? Again, on what basis did the freelance choose his targets?
Then there is the questionable matter of relying on an unidentified freelance for such an obvious contentious "investigation". That's so unusual for such a high-profile story that I cannot remember a previous instance. It's fine to have confidential sources, but journalists should not have such a privilege.
Worse still is the use of a freelance as some kind of built-in deniability for what is produced. It was noticeable that in his defence, the Mirror group's editor-in-chief, Lloyd Embley, said it was "not a Mirror sting." But that's semantics.
The Sunday Mirror accepted the story from the freelancer, evidently tested his methodology and his bona fides and then published it. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, it was the paper's sting. It is demeaning for the Mirror to distance itself from the exercise." 'via Blog this'
Only Tory MPs were targeted. Why was that? Was there a political motive? Again, on what basis did the freelance choose his targets?
Then there is the questionable matter of relying on an unidentified freelance for such an obvious contentious "investigation". That's so unusual for such a high-profile story that I cannot remember a previous instance. It's fine to have confidential sources, but journalists should not have such a privilege.
Worse still is the use of a freelance as some kind of built-in deniability for what is produced. It was noticeable that in his defence, the Mirror group's editor-in-chief, Lloyd Embley, said it was "not a Mirror sting." But that's semantics.
The Sunday Mirror accepted the story from the freelancer, evidently tested his methodology and his bona fides and then published it. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, it was the paper's sting. It is demeaning for the Mirror to distance itself from the exercise." 'via Blog this'
Conservatives pledge powers to ignore European court of human rights rulings
Conservatives pledge powers to ignore European court of human rights rulings | Politics | The Guardian: "Grieve said: “The suggestion that they can be negotiated with the Council of Europe so that the UK has its own space where it can [take what it wants] while everyone else complies is almost laughable. How can the UK obtain such a status when other countries have signed up to an agreement collectively to implement judgments?” Some ECHR judgments, such as the right to give prisoners the vote, were, he said, mistaken, but the proposals in the Conservative document seemed to “lack any maturity”.
They also drew a furious response from the Tories’ coalition partners. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat justice minister, said: “The Conservatives don’t care about the rights of British citizens – they care about losing to Ukip. These plans make no sense: you can’t protect the human rights of Brits and pull out of the system that protects them.
“Europe’s human rights laws were designed by British lawyers to reflect British values of justice, tolerance and decency. We will not allow the Tories to take away the hard-won human rights of British people when in the UK or anywhere else in Europe.”" 'via Blog this'
They also drew a furious response from the Tories’ coalition partners. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat justice minister, said: “The Conservatives don’t care about the rights of British citizens – they care about losing to Ukip. These plans make no sense: you can’t protect the human rights of Brits and pull out of the system that protects them.
“Europe’s human rights laws were designed by British lawyers to reflect British values of justice, tolerance and decency. We will not allow the Tories to take away the hard-won human rights of British people when in the UK or anywhere else in Europe.”" 'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)