Law, Justice and Journalism

Archive for 2012|Yearly archive page

, ,

Geoffrey Robertson QC: Press ‘must do better to protect open justice’

In Events, Journalism, Justice, Law on March 21, 2025 at 1:47 pm

By PA Media Lawyer

The press needs to lift its game if the principle of open justice is to be maintained, a senior QC has warned.

Part of the rationale for open justice was that it meant that judges were themselves under trial while conducting cases, because of media and public scrutiny, and that the public was educated by reports of what was happening in the courts, said media law and human rights specialist Geoffrey Robertson.

“There has been very little informed criticism of the judicial performance of our judges,” he told a conference entitled Justice Wide Open, at City University London, on February 29.

“The media, it seems to me, are third rate, compared to the American media, where appointments to the Supreme Court are covered critically by a lot of experts and a lot of legal journalists,” he said.

“Here the level of coverage of the courts - and certainly critical coverage - is very poor. The number of journalists in courts has been cut.”

But little encouragement was given to critical journalism, Mr Robertson said.

Read the full article at PA Media Lawyer here (subscription required). Papers from the conference will be published later this spring, in a Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism publication. See the project page for more details.

, , ,

Digital age poses challenge for jury trials

In Events, Journalism, Justice, Law on March 19, 2025 at 10:30 am

By PA Media Lawyer

The jury system might need to be changed to allow jurors to play a more active part in trials as a result of the advances in technology which brought the internet, micro-blogging and social websites such as Twitter and Facebook, a conference was told.

At present technological advances posed two dangers to trials in criminal cases, said Professor Ian Cram, Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Leeds (left).

“We can characterise the dangers that arise in two ways - jurors who do their own research, producing information flowing into the jury room. Facebook and Twitter facilitate this sort of flow of information,” he said.

“Information also flows out of the jury room - jurors may send Tweets or updates on their jury room experiences in real time, including on how their deliberations are going,” he told the Justice Wide Open - Open Justice in the Digital Age conference at City University London, on February 29.

Read the full article at PA Media Lawyer here (subscription required). Professor Cram’s paper will be published later this spring, in a Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism publication. See the project page for more details.

, , ,

Lorna Woods: Google and Data Protection – Again!

In Comment, Law on March 16, 2025 at 9:52 am

By Professor Lorna Woods

A new reference has landed on the ECJ’s desk: Google Spain and Google (Case C-131/12) from the Audiencia Nacional in Spain.

The ECJ official website is a bit thin on details, but this seems to be the same case reported by Reuters. That case concerns the right to be forgotten – implicit in the current data protection regime (but which would be made explicit were the draft Data Protection Regulation ever to come in to being).

While the judge apparently referred a number of questions, including one about jurisdiction, the central issue is whether Google should be obliged to delete data referring to individuals. The impetus for the cases comes from aggrieved individuals who have applied to the Spanish data protection authority to have information deleted. This case is likely to be one that is closely watched given the likely stormy passage of the proposed Data Protection Regulation.

Central to the discussion will be the relationship between the e-Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC) and the Data Protection Directive. While the e-Commerce Directive shields ISPs from liability in a range of circumstances, that directive is expressed not to apply to ‘questions relating to information society services covered by Directives 95/46/EC and 97/66/EC’ (article 1(5)(b) e-Commerce Directive and Recital 14). Directive 95/46/EC is, of course, the current Data Protection Directive.

Google is, of course, not unfamiliar with the exception to the e-Commerce Directive, as it arose when directors of Google were charged under Italian data protection laws relating to user generated content (UGC) posted on a You-Tube type service operated by Google. The UGC was a clip from a mobile phone which showed some boys bullying another boy with Downs Syndrome. The Google executives were given 6 month suspended gaol sentences. A decision on appeal was due to be handed down by the Court of Appeal in Milan in 2011, though in September the case, according to one of those involved (Peter Fleischer) had not been assigned. One would hope that in the interests of timely just that this issue is decided before the ECJ hands down its ruling in Case C-131/12.

If the non-availability of the hosting exceptions, then presumably the key issue is the scope of the rights under the DPD. Therein lies the rub. While the DPD is set against a privacy (Article 8 ECHR) backdrop, it does not grant any particular right to be forgotten. Instead, the DPD provides how data should be managed, which includes the archiving and deletion obligations. How far the ECJ is prepared to push this, especially in the light of data protection as a fully fledged right in the EU Charter, remains to be seen. This is the new contentious issue in the privacy/freedom of expression debate. For a range of views see: Google’s privacy counsel; a security consultant; and an academic viewpoint [PDF], among, no doubt, many more.

, , ,

Justice Wide Open: courts and legal information in the digital age

In City University London, Events, Journalism, Justice, Law on March 2, 2025 at 4:42 pm

On Wednesday 29 February 2012, academics, lawyers and journalists gathered to discuss open justice in the digital age at City University London.

The programme included context and history, issues for the media and an academic perspective. Speakers included: Geoffrey Robertson QC; Hugh Tomlinson QC; Heather Brooke, journalist and author; Mike Dodd, editor of PA Media Lawyer; and Professor Ian Cram, Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law, University of Leeds.

Later in the spring the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism will be releasing a set of papers from the event and also work on practical recommendations to take forward. Please contact judith.townend.1@city.ac.uk if you would like to be involved or have suggestions.

In the meantime, here are some links to reports elsewhere, tweets, photos and audio.

Audio recordings & slides

  • Session one, with Hugh Tomlinson QC, David Goldberg, information rights academic and activist; and Emily Allbon, City Law School librarian [slides] (chair: Professor Howard Tumber).
  • Session 2, with Heather Brooke, journalist and author; Mike Dodd, editor of PA Media Lawyer; Adam Wagner, barrister; William Perrin, founder of Talk About Local [slides] (chair: Judith Townend).
  • Session 3. An academic perspective, with Professor Ian Cram, Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law, University of Leeds [slides] and Dr Lawrence McNamara, Reader in Law and ESRC/AHRC Research Fellow, University of Reading (chair: Professor Ian Loveland).

, , ,

Freedom of expression and mass media technologies

In Journalism, Law on February 21, 2025 at 7:05 pm

By Professor Lorna Woods

Two months into 2012 and it seems that last year’s Arab Spring has given the impetus to some international bodies to look at mechanisms to facilitate the free flow of information through mass communications media.

The Internet is the example that leaps readily to mind and indeed, the EU Commission revealed that the ICT sector was one of three selected for the development of sector specific human rights guidance aimed at companies in the sector, so as to support corporate social responsibility.

Of course, given the nature of the ICT sector, the development of these guidelines should also support the Commission’s ‘No Disconnect’ strategy, announced by Neelie Kroes just before Christmas.

Presumably the ‘No Disconnect’ Strategy should apply without it discrimination. It was, however, specifically based on a reaction to the events of the ‘Arab Spring’, and the Commission Communication “A Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean” (COM (2011) 200).

A slightly less obvious example is that of satellite broadcasting. Satellite broadcasting is regulated in the international sphere via the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), limiting and coordinating the freedom of signatory states in the field of use of radio frequency and orbiting satellites. A decision was taken at this year’s ITU World Radio Communications Conference (WRC-12) to allow signatory states to take action when they discover that other states have deliberately interfered with satellite transmissions, ie jamming them. One hundred and sixty five of the ITU’s 193 members, agreed to the amendment of Article 15.2 of the ITU regulations so as to allow signatory states make take ‘necessary actions’.

, ,

House of Lords report: analysis

In Journalism on February 19, 2025 at 9:59 am

By Jamie Thunder

Thursday’s House of Lords Communications Committee report does not solve the question of how to fund investigative journalism. But then, no-one really expected it to.

It would be harsh to criticise the good Lords for not finding a solution for the news media’s financial difficulties (and remember, despite some notable exceptions the future of investigative journalism is still largely coupled to the fate of the wider industry). They do, however, suggest some ways to encourage investigations.

Their main concrete suggestion is to set up an investigative fund, which would take money from Ofcom fines (and the PCC’s successor if it has the power to fine) and redistribute that to journalists and organisations to do investigations.

This is on the face of it rather attractive. By punishing bad journalism, we can support the good, and insulate it slightly from the economic crisis that threatens news organisation.

Over at the Guardian, however, Roy Greenslade isn’t impressed:

[I]f tax breaks or other forms of financial support are to be granted through the state, the money should be used for proper journalistic enterprise.

If so, there would need to be oversight on how publishers were spending their resources.

How bizarre this all sounds. The state would need to monitor a “free press” (!) to ensure that the free press was holding the organs of the state to account because the free press cannot be trusted to invest in investigative journalism that does just that.

I’ve asked Ofcom how much they collected in fines for breaching the Broadcasting Code in 2010/11, and will update this post once they reply. This is my main problem with the proposal: I’m not sure it would make much difference. In some cases Ofcom imposes huge fines, but these are rare, and the figure would presumably fluctuate greatly from year to year.

But I don’t agree with Roy that the idea is bizarre. The fund could be run independently from the state, and rather than require any onerous monitoring it could be used to fund an investigative reporter for a period of time or to look into a particular story/area.

It’s not perfect: it would favour organisations with dedicated investigative reporters rather than daily reporters who hit on a story worth pursuing, and few journalists would be happy to disclose the area they want to investigate. But it’s worth serious consideration.

Read the rest of this entry »

, ,

Media fines should support investigative journalism, say Lords

In Journalism on February 17, 2025 at 9:13 pm

By Jamie Thunder

Fines on the media for breaching industry codes should be put into an ‘investigative journalism fund’ to support public interest journalism, the House of Lords Communications Committee has recommended.

The Committee today released its report into the future of investigative journalism, arguing that the practice is a ”vital constituent of the UK’s system of democratic governance and accountability”.

It said that the “profound” crisis caused by falls in advertising and sales revenue due to the recession and competition from the internet threatened investigative journalism, and that the government should “think creatively” about ways to help journalism through a “difficult” time.

These could include reforming charity law to allow investigative journalism organisations to gain charitable status, or redistributing money collected by Ofcom and any successor to the Press Complaints Commission with the power to fine.

The peers also said lawmakers should “consider” including a public interest defence in any future legislation, but stopped short of suggesting a general statutory public interest defence.

Instead, they called for clearer guidelines on which cases involving journalists should be prosecuted - something the Director of Public Prosecutions has said will be made available.

Other recommendations made by the Committee, which also supported moves to reform libel laws, include:

  • Add ‘investigative journalism’ to the current affairs definition for Public Service Broadcasters
  • Keep the zero-rated VAT on newspapers and consider making it dependent on members of the PCC or its successor
  • Do not provide state funding for investigative journalism other than zero-rated VAT and the licence fee

Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , ,

New book: Phone hacking - journalism on trial

In City University London, Journalism on February 17, 2025 at 2:18 pm

A new book about the phone hacking scandal features chapters by Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism PhD researchers Glenda Cooper and Judith Townend.

The Phone Hacking Scandal: Journalism on Trial, edited by Richard Lance Keeble and John Mair (Arima 2012) was published this month.

Chapter details:

  • ‘Facing up to the Ethical Issues surrounding Facebook Use’ by Glenda Cooper.
  • ‘Press “Omerta”: How Newspapers’ Failure to Report the Phone Hacking Scandal Exposed the Limitations of Media Accountability’ by Daniel Bennett and Judith Townend [Download here].

Other authors include Brian Cathcart, Jackie Newton and Sallyann Duncan, Richard Peppiatt, Alan Rusbridger, John Tulloch, Steven Barnett, Stewart Purvis, Kevin Marsh, Nicholas Jones, John Lloyd and Chris Atkins.

This is the sixth in a series of books coming out of the Coventry Conversations Conferences held jointly with the BBC College of Journalism and the School of Journalism at the University of Lincoln.

 

, , , , , , , , ,

‘This is not Justice’: Ian Tomlinson, Institutional Failure and the Press Politics of Outrage

In Justice, Social sciences on January 23, 2025 at 11:01 am

A recent paper by Chris Greer and Eugene McLaughlin, from the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism, in the British Journal of Criminology contributes to research on the sociology of scandal and the role of national newspapers and, more particularly, newspaper editorials in setting the agenda for public debate around police accountability and miscarriages of justice.

In previous work, we analysed how citizen journalism framed news coverage of the policing of the G20 Summit, London 2009, and the death of Ian Tomlinson (Greer and McLaughlin 2010). In this article, we consider the next stage of the Ian Tomlinson case. Our empirical focus is the controversy surrounding the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decision not to prosecute the police officer filmed striking Tomlinson shortly before he collapsed and died. We illustrate how the press’s relentless agenda-setting around ‘institutional failure’, initially targeted at the Metropolitan Police Service, expanded to implicate a network of criminal justice institutions. The Tomlinson case offers insights into the shifting nature of contemporary relations between the British press and institutional power. It is a paradigmatic example of a politically ambitious form of ‘attack journalism’, the scope of which extends beyond the criminal justice system. In a volatile information-communications marketplace, journalistic distrust of institutional power is generating a ‘press politics of outrage’, characterized by ‘scandal amplification’.

The paper can be accessed via this link. [Br J Criminol (2011) doi: 10.1093/bjc/azr086, First published online: November 17, 2025].

,

Registration open for ‘Justice Wide Open’ event on legal knowledge in a digital era

In City University London, Events, Journalism, Justice, Law on January 16, 2025 at 10:46 am

The Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism will be hosting ‘Justice Wide Open’ on Wednesday 29 February 2025 at City University London from 9am-2pm. It’s free to attend but registration is required.

Geoffrey Robertson QC will open the event with a talk on ‘Alphabet Soup and the judicial retreat from open justice’. Three sessions will cover the history and context of the flow of legal knowledge; legal reporting and the media; and an academic perspective on open justice.

Speakers include: Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Chambers; Dr David Goldberg, information rights academic and activist; Emily Allbon, law librarian, City Law School; Heather Brooke, journalist and activist; Mike Dodd, editor of PA Media Lawyer; Adam Wagner, barrister, One Crown Office Row and editor of the UK Human Rights Blog; William Perrin, founder, Talk About Local and member of the Crime and Justice Sector Panel on Transparency; Professor Ian Cram, Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law, University of Leeds; Dr Lawrence McNamara, Reader in Law and ESRC/AHRC Research Fellow, University of Reading.

Read the rest of this entry »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 279 other followers