Trial by media again

I've been shouting at the television news all week. I can't believe that almost all of our news organisations decided to name both suspects in the recent Suffolk murder enquiry.

This is potentially in breach of the Contempt of Court Act through Strict Liability Contempt  where a publication of a newspaper article, for example, may be judged to prejudice a forthcoming trial. On this basis, the local police constabulary specifically warned the media not to report the identity of the men they were interviewing:

"We would kindly ask that the media do not publish any material that may hinder the investigation, especially where identification might be an issue, or may prejudice the right of anyone to a fair trial at a future date."

However, as the Press Gazette reported, this was ignored by almost all of our national newspapers:

Despite the risk of breaching the Contempt of Court Act - nearly every national newspaper today named Tom Stephens as a suspect and published his picture. Chief Constable Alastair McWhirter sent a second letter to all newspaper editors today, following the arrest of another man in connection with the case.

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith (who is responsible for deciding whether or not to pursue Contempt of Court prosecutions) later added his voice to the concerns expressed by the Chief Constable of the Suffolk Constabulary but he shied away from any attempt to use the powers at his disposal to hold the press back:

"I'm certainly not saying that at the moment that there has been a contempt [of court] by anyone, but I will want to review the coverage once all of this becomes clearer. Of course we don't know if any charges are going to be brought at this stage, and if so against whom."

Michael Crimp, a senior prosecutor for the Suffolk Crown Prosecution Service, decided that there was enough evidence to bring charges against the second man but again warned against media coverage that might jeopardise the suspect's right to a fair trial:

"At this time I would like to remind you of the need to take care in reporting the events surrounding this case," Mr Crimp said. "Steven Wright stands accused of these offences and has a right to a fair trial before a jury. It is extremely important that there should be responsible media reporting which should not prejudice the due process of law."

At no point did the police ever name the suspects. Only once a man had been charged did they name him. They have never released the name of the first man who has since been released without charge.

Whilst the police, the CPS and the Attorney General are worried that the trial will fall through, I am far more concerned about defending our civil liberties.

Just imagine if it was YOU who was wrongly accused of murder. Imagine if it was your name on the front page.

In an editorial today, The Guardian's Mark Lawson picked up this theme, accusing his fellow reporters of "contempt for future suspect's lives". In his article Lawson notes that the speculation about the suspects has been unprecendented. However, instead of calling for a halt to this practice Lawson attempts to justify it by arguing that the information would have come out anyway because of the internet:

"I'm not advocating a return to the time when the reporting of arrests would be limited to the fact that "a 48-year-old man is helping the police with their inquiries". Fragmentation and democratisation of the media make anonymity of suspects impossible. Even if the press and broadcasters observed the old omerta imposed by the attorney general, a neighbour or relative of the arrested would be able, without practical censure, to post their identity on a website or blog."

Maybe, but this information only reached mass consciousness through the decision of a small number of national news editors to announce the identity of the man in an attempt to sell more newspapers.

The various lame excuses offered by our media for naming suspects in this context just do not stand scrutiny.

Wait until the trial. We don't need to know. People should be tried in court not in print and on television.