Media Law Update.

*Hanna, M. & Dodd, M. “McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists” (2012) 

*For further information visit: www.mcnaes.com

Post to outline recent changes made to British Legal System and how it affects Journalistic practice as a whole. 

*“bloodhound as well as a watchdog.”

“Media Organisations” used to describe publishers of newspapers, magazines and broadcasters, etc. Now includes the likes of freelance journalists and bloggers and “tweeters.”

Journalists can lawfully “tweet”/text/email live from courtroom.

*Social media as online advancement of modern Journalism; applies to ‘live, text based communications’ only.

*Journalists no longer need to apply to court for permission to post from internet connected laptops or mobile devices within public proceedings.

*These rules do not apply to members of the public however.

*”An unobtrusive, hand held, silent piece of modern equipment for the purposes of simultaneous reporting of proceedings to the outside world as they unfold in court is generally unlikely to interfere with the proper administration of justice.” 

Law Summary.

In brief; key points will be built upon over the next couple days.

Introduction.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (EU, ARTICLE 10)
Update: Leveson Inquiry.
Chairman of Inquiry: Lord Justice Leveson.

*Two-part inquiry launched on 13 July 2011 investigating role of press and police following phone hacking scandal at 'News of the World'

*"Who guards the guardians?" Aim to examine the ethics of the press.

*First part of inquiry published 29 November 2012.

CIVIL LAW: Disputes between individuals.

CRIMINAL LAW: Against the community. 

STANDARDS OF PROOF: 

*"the balance of probability" (CIVIL)

*"beyond reasonable doubt" (CRIMINAL)

THREE SOURCES OF LAW:

*Common Law

*Statute Law (Parliament)

*EU (Human Rights)

RULE AGAINST PRIOR RESTRAINT

*Remedy to follow publication rather than proceed it.

Update: Injunction to undermine above (to perform/restrain against act)

PUBLIC INTEREST as common defence for Journalists.

*Regarding information that is valuable to society as a whole.

A Look At "Britain's Most Influential Newspaper"

Established by The Political Bodies Association in 2010 as “Britain’s most influential newspaper” (Daily Mail), the Daily Mail is currently the second biggest selling daily newspaper after The Sun.

It was first published in 1896 by Lord Northcliffe as a newspaper for women (Wikipedia). Its exclusive “Femail” magazine, that contains features especially tailored for a female audience, means its current readership is more than 50% female, 38% of which are over 65 years old (NMA).

It is considered a suburban, conservative newspaper that, according to the Newspaper Marketing Agency (NMA), is most popular with adults in the ABC1C2 category (Upper Middle Class, Middle Class, Lower Middle Class and Skilled Working Class).

The "Stephen Lawrence Case” is said to be historic of the Daily Mail, as on 14^th February 1997 they identified and published the five men who had been arrested in connection with the stabbing. The headline read, “Murderers: The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us.” 

Lawrence was a black, British teenager who was stabbed to death at a bus stop in South London on the evening of 22^nd April 1993, with the investigation being branded “one of the most important moments in the modern history of Criminal Justice in Britain.” (Macpherson, 1999).

The Macpherson Report (1999) made legal history in Britain. As a judge in the Stephen Lawrence case, Macpherson headed an inquiry examining Metropolitan Police. He concluded that they were “institutionally racist” and “incompetent.” In response, he demanded a reform of The Judicial System to address the issue of Institutional Racism. He also abolished the “Double Jeopardy” rule (Wikipedia) which aims to: “… enable the appeal court to allow a new prosecution after acquittal where fresh evidence is presented.” (The Macpherson Report, 1999). 

Two men suspected of Lawrence’s murder are currently being tried for the crime once more after “new scientific evidence” was revealed. This story featured on the front page of 15/11/11 issue, with the headline “After 18 long years, Doreen Lawrence faces son’s alleged killers in court.”

The Daily Mail has played a big part in this case with its continuous campaign for justice. The press are “the eyes and ears of the public” and by identifying the people arrested on suspicion of Lawrence’s murder as “murderers”, they could have been at risk of being in Contempt of Court (Contempt Of Court Act, 1981). The publication had the media power to prejudice a fair trial and therefore interfere with the course of justice. 

In the most recent trial (the trial of Gary Dobson and David Norris) the judge ruled that the jury ignore all media speculation surrounding the case for fear of it affecting the outcome, branding it all “irrelevant.” (Sky News).

The Art Of Copyright.

In Journalistic terms, Copyright refers to the "branch of the law that enables Journalism to exist as a business."

It was the 1911 Copyright Act that made the breach of Copyright a crime. Everybody has the right to their own "intellectual property" that prevents their work from being stolen or exploited by the public. They can however, either choose to keep ownership or "buy out" the commercial rights (but retain moral rights as sanctioned under the 1988 Copyright Act). 

It is crucial as a Journalist to remember that there is no Copyright in ideas.

This can be made clearer in "The Da Vinci Code Case" where two people sued author Dan Brown claiming they had already published the premise to his novel "The Da Vinci Code" some years earlier. Their case was lost however as there was no substantial proof that Brown had "lifted" anything from the previous book.

Accordingly, it is safe to re-do old stories as long as the source has been accredited and some of it is your own work.

You are also allowed to use Copyright in the context of:

• Comment.
• Criticism.
• Review.

There can be no Copyright in information. Only liable if the information has been turned into news by a Journalist.

This is where the old Journalistic trick of fair dealing or "lifting" comes into play. You can "lift" quotes from articles as long as you credit the source and 

it is a matter of public interest. "Passing off" is out of the question as you could be in breach of Copyright law and could be sued for compensation if it can be proved that you have stolen the work. To be protected from Copyright, the piece of work must be original.

Creative Commons allows people to pre-licence work for anyone to use but this is often limited. It can also apply 70 years after the death of an author or, in terms of music, 50 years from the year in which the work was created.

WINOL Review (26/10/11).

My task today was to review the latest WINOL news bulletin.

Broadcasting every week, award-winning WINOL enables students to get a taste of what it is really like to work in the Broadcast Journalism industry.

It is key to remember that Journalism is always planned. Although lacking in a deeply compelling story (unlike last week) there was good justification of statistics to coincide with the amount of fair comment provided, coupled with the relevant general view. By doing this, WINOL has followed one of the critical rules that "justice has to be seen to be done".

Winchester's local unions were quite clearly libelled during the bulletin with the expression of their "outrage" over the live streaming of their meeting, which intended to show the public the "transparency of public authority." Here, they have been identified and the story has been published, therefore through the eyes of the public they have been defamed.

Identification ---> Publication---> Defamation = LIBEL.

The choice to make their meetings public could lead to them being shunned and avoided. Or open to hatred and ridicule. However, the degree of public interest within this story is what makes it newsworthy.

For more information on WINOL visit: http://winol.co.uk/.

A Report From Crown Court (19/10/11).

Law is a common language among Journalists mainly outlining how not to get sued.

I admit, common sense doesn't come naturally to me. I put this down to lack of worldly experience. However when properly put into practice, there's no doubt it plays a crucial part in the everyday life of a Journalist.

For this module I was set the task of visiting Winchester Crown Court.

We walked through steel doors engraved with metal shields that when closed, faced out towards the town. We tread on mosaic flooring up towards a varnished desk where an older man requests to search our belongings. Camera's confiscated as I step through the plastic archway. A red light flashes on the portal. Another man, a similar age to the latter, approaches and scans me. They both wore navy jerseys, like policemen, only without the knock, knock hats. All clear we proceed to the reception.

Waiting outside courtroom one, we squint at a tiny TV screen situated next to a set of double doors. A rape case. Three judges in wigs and black overalls pass by. Walking through the double doors we become overwhelmed by the clinical yet rustic feel of the place. We nervously hold onto the narrow banisters as we climb up three flights of stairs. The public gallery awaits.

We sat observing. We were at the highest level in the courtroom. The kind of level I would assume belongs to the judge. Instead, he is orientated directly below a bronze plaque that hangs directly in front of us. Another shield. Lion on the left, unicorn on the right. Fighting. Fighting over power perhaps? Or Justice? The rule "justice must be seen to be done" comes to mind. 

We sit on pinkish/purple chairs. The kind of colour that will now provoke a feeling of isolation and awkwardness. A quiet voice echoes through the courtroom. The voice of a young woman. A mild typing is heard in the background reflecting the emptiness of this place. The jury appear anonymous, saddened, concerned. The Judge, surprisingly cheerful in his tone, demands they reconvene tomorrow morning.

We get up to leave. I notice the orange carpet quite retro in design. Historical much like the rest of this place. Strange for a relatively modern building.