By Professor Lorna Woods

Of recent months, the issue of restrictions on the reporting of details in court cases has been the subject of some debate in the UK, with issues ranging from TV cameras in court through to anonymity and even super injunctions.

The UK is not alone in needing to balance the conflicting interests of public justice and freedom of expression on the one hand and other interests in the fair administration of justice and individuals’ reputational and privacy rights on the other.

This issue has come before the German courts recently in respect of a rape case involving a celebrity, in which sexual practices read out in court were then reported by a media publisher and a website operator.

The court upheld the celebrity’s claim for an injunction on the basis that, in the balancing act between freedom of expression and privacy, the reporting on the case was salacious; the sexual details reported had little connection with the alleged crime.

It is the focus on the sexual details unconnected with public interest in knowing about the crime or judicial proceedings that seem to have been fatal to the freedom of expression claim. It seems, however, that the German appeal court distinguished the revelation of facts in court, where the numbers of people attending and hearing the evidence are limited, to the unlimited exposure in the media.

On this basis, the court held that public court proceedings did not give the press the right to report on everything that was said in court. This distinction is unlikely to be workable in an environment where there are cameras in court, specifically if there is live broadcast.

For a more detailed note (in English) of the cases, see: the Merlin newsletter, IRIS 2012-4:1/17