French politicians have rejected a bill proposing that people caught downloading music illegally three times should be cut off from the Internet. Read more here
Family courts across England and Wales are to open up access to the media for the first time, Justice Secretary Jack Straw has announced. However, many cases will remain unreportable. Read more here
Privacy cases in the UK continue to pose a significant challenge to press freedom, says Gavin Millar
(more…)
Judges, lawyers and journalists all need to be clearer on guidelines for reporting restrictions, writes Gill Phillips
Twelve years ago Lord Justice Staughton reminded us that “The Latin maxim that justice must be done though the heavens fall applies even in times of terrorism; or at least we have not been driven to abandon it,”: [R. v. Vincent Wood [1996] 1 Cr. App. R. 207 at 219 A.] . Recently, the media’s experience, nationally and regionally, is that there is an increasing propensity amongst both civil and criminal courts, but especially the criminal courts, to make incorrect or inappropriate orders restricting the reporting of their proceedings. The media rarely if ever recovers its costs in these cases, even where it is 100 per cent right to have challenged the order. There is an increasing cost and time burden on the media in trying to police the making of such orders.
The main concern of the media is that they should, in the interests of open justice, fair and accurate reporting and the public interest, be able to fully and properly report a trial as it proceeds, up to and including its conclusion.
There is a powerful public interest in open justice. This has been repeatedly emphasised by the Courts since at least the decision of the House of Lords in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417. Justice should be done in public as a safeguard against judicial arbitrariness and to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.