A Plymouth Evening Herald journalist, Matt Fleming, has successfully challenged a court ruling in order to report a major drugs case. The judge had previously imposed a Section 4(2) order - part of the Contempt of Court Act - making it illegal to tell the story about a £1m cocaine supply chain in Plymouth. Fleming was allowed to address the court and eventually changed the judge's mind, citing public interest as a major reason. He told holdthefrontpage exactly how he went about it. It's an interesting little tale in itself. Anyway, his victory meant that he was able to report the conviction and sentencing of three men on a variety of drugs charges.
This matter of reporting in Britain's courts, and the continual need for journalists to make challenges to fulfil their public interest duties, has spurred me to make this the first Greenslade blog campaign. In a previous posting (July 7, The sad story behind the Argus reporter's triumph) I told how a Brighton Evening Argus journalist tried to convince a court that she should be able to name four Asbo youths. She succeeded only in avoiding her paper paying the costs of her perfectly reasonable challenge.
I know from other editors that there is a continuing problem about identity issues. The full addresses and personal details of people appearing before courts are not being disclosed to journalists who then have to check them with a court afterwards, usually a time-consuming and frustrating business. Regional editors see the withholding of the identity of defendants as a creeping menace, denying them the chance to inform the public properly. Some editors do challenge. Many shrug and walk away, accepting the restrictions. Judges and magistrates (and the police too, on occasion) appear to be holding sway, making ad hocdecisions that require rigorous questioning. The most successful challenges begin with editors or reporters writing to judges in advance of hearings, but this isn't always feasible.
Paul Horrocks, the editor of the Manchester Evening News has written to the Attorney General, urging him to set up a national website where courts are required to place all restrictive reporting orders. This would, at least, reduce instances of accidental contempt, a secondary problem caused by this growing habit. But, says Horrocks, despite phone calls and letters to the Attorney General's office, "not a lot has happened".
To this end, I'd like instances of ALL the difficulties reporters are facing in the courts across Britain. If we are to convince the government that there is a real problem then we need as much evidence as possible of the restrictions we face in trying to do the job of telling our communities what is happening, to whom, and why.
