Media Law 2: Criminal Courts

Often, the criminal courts are a brilliant source of news for journalists. However, it is a source that comes with certain risks. We must realise these risks to ensure we do not prejudice the outcome of a case, and find ourselves in contempt of court.

As journalists we must understand the complex nature of the criminal courts. Cases start out in the magistrates court.  The magistrates court usually consist of three lay persons who decide upon the outcome of a case. When a trial concerns a summary offence, the least serious crimes, the case will be heard in its entirety by magistrates.

The Crown court deals with the most serious offences that take place, known as indictable offences.  These tend to be crimes that are particularly newsworthy as they have a huge effect on the community, for example, rape and murder. Trials that take place at the Crown court take place in front of a judge and jury. The Crown court has more scope to hand out a longer sentence than the magistrates court. 

Either-way offences create an interesting situation whereby defendants may be tried at either court. Some evidence establishes that those tried at the Crown are more likely to be acquitted and as it is usually up to the defendant to decide where he is tried, he can risk a longer sentence at the Crown or play it safe knowing he will get much shorter sentence at the magistrates.

In our lecture we looked at an example involving the reporting of a robbery as the case unfolded, reaching preliminary hearings at the magistrates. It became obvious as we worked through the case that the facts that we can report on are very limited once a case becomes "active." A case is legally active if several things happen;

• police make an arrest;
• an arrest warrant is issued;
• magistrates issue a summons, or;
• a person is charged with the crime.

Once the case reaches the preliminary stages in the magistrates court, the facts that journalists can report on become very limited. As no jury has yet been selected, any information they read, watch or listen to could prejudice their opinions on the case. Section 8 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 lists the facts that can be published;

• the name of the court;
• the name, address and occupation of the persons involved;
• the charges;
• the names of legal representatives;
• information on bail (although generally not reasons for refusal as this could be prejudicial;)
• information on legal aid
• and, if proceedings are adjourned to another time and place.

Some obvious restrictions are therefore in place.

Firstly, we cannot report on any evidence that has been heard. For example, Graham Glen, editor of The Citizen, was fined a substantial sum for reporting on the confession by Fred West of the murder of his daughter, after this information was disclosed at a preliminary hearing. It is quite obvious that information such as this could prejudice any prospective jury member.

Secondly, we cannot report on any previous convictions that the defendant may have. The very nature of "the presumption of innocence" rests on the jury being impartial of any factors that may influence them. Any information on previous convictions has obvious implications for this, as many could go by the old maxim; "once a crook, always a crook."

Special rules are set out for cases involving sexaul offences in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. A separate set of complex rules also governs the reporting of children in court. In most cases they will remain anonymous. We must not risk identifying them, especially inadvertadly by being too precise in descriptions.

Other factors that can effect journalists who report on court cases include fair and balanced reporting of the trial. For example, we cannot report the prosecution and then refuse to report the defence. This would not allow for a fair and balanced report of the case and could leave the journalist open to losing their absolute privilige.