Here's an interesting comparison raised by Andrew Grant-Adamson. While the 15 sailors have been permitted to sell their stories to newspapers, a couple with a heart-rending tale have been denied the freedom to talk to the press.
Jake and Victoria Ward are desperate to tell the story of their 18-month "nightmare" before they were cleared of harming their baby son William, who they had taken to a doctor with a swollen leg which turned out to be fractured. As The Guardian reported yesterday, that visit to the GP ended with Cambridgeshire county council, for whom they both worked, taking proceedings against them and suspending them from work. They were then subjected to a police investigation.
But a county court judge ruled that there was no evidence that the Wards were guilty of injuring their son. Naturally, the couple want the world to know of their innocence, but the case was heard behind closed doors. So the doctors, social workers, council officers and police involved in their case have their anonymity preserved while the Wards are barred from discussing any aspects of the case not specifically mentioned in the judgments.
"The idea of open justice demands that the full story should be known", writes Grant-Adamson. Nor, it should be noted, is there any suggestion that the Wards are seeking money for their story. They just want to exercise their right to tell the truth in public.
Grant-Adamson concludes: "Openness seems too often in England today to depend upon whether it serves the interests of government and its officials."
It surely does. The Wards' story clearly has implications for the administration of public policy. It highlights, yet again, the high-handedness of council welfare departments. By refusing to allow the couple to speak out, the law is denying them their right to freedom of expression.
