Law Assignment - Coursework Example

1. In order for a publication or person to be found in contempt of court, the following conditions, as covered by the strict liability rule, apply: (1.) proceedings are not active; (2.) there is a substantial risk of serious prejudice. Therefore, the story will have to be modified in order to show that the reporter and editor are not slanting the story with the implication that the suspects have been proven to be the culprits. The story cannot assume the guilt of the suspect nor publish any identifying descriptions or data pertaining to the accused. The story can only state that the arrested is a suspect in the crime but nothing more. 2. By publishing the description of a man sought for questioning, the mass media could actually create a risk of serious prejudice to an active case. But in this scenario, the case is inactive and the man is merely sought for the purposes of question clarification. Therefore, the media can warn the public about the dangers of dealing with this man. This is so that the public may be warned in case the person sought is armed or violent in some ways. Public safety is of the utmost concern in such situations. However, once a warrant of arrest is issued, the media will no longer be able to use the mans name or description as it would serve a prejudicial purpose in the case. 3. Section 4 (1) is the ruling that protects court reporters from being accused of contempt because it states that “a person cannot be found guilty of contempt under the Strict Liability Rule” in relation to “fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public published contemporaneously and in good faith.” That is provided that there has been no court order pertaining to the postponement of reports on certain legal matters or bans on the identification of the person and other information. The ruling applies regardless of the judge not issuing or postponing a banning order. This ruling is further supported by Section 4(2) which is the postponement order. This postponement order allows the courts to prevent the media from reporting on a court case or a portion of a court case. This is done in order to “avoid substantial risk of prejudice” to other facets of the case in the upcoming or later stages. This ruling does not put a permanent ban on media coverage of an issue. There is an expectation that certain reporting rules may eventually relax in relation to prejudice in the case. A challenge may be posed to Section 4(2) if a ban is placed on the publication of certain situations that should not be covered by the ruling. It was Lord Bingham in the Court of Appeal of 1999 who explained that “The problem is exacerbated in the ordinary run of cases where the story itself, although something which a local newspaper would wish to publish, is not the sort of story of the highest public interest such as to justify the expense by the newspaper of seeking to have the order rectified.” Challenges may also be posed to the order if the risk of prejudice is not substantial; the data relates to the reporting of the day’s proceedings, or it attempts to restrict reports of events outside the court. Section 11, which is also known as the banning order, is used in order to ban the identification of anyone in the media whose name and information have not yet been disclosed by the proper authorities. This may be challenged if any of the following conditions exist: The administration of justice does not demand such a ban Such a ban would contradict the principles of open justice (R v Central Criminal Court) where the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court held that it was an essential part of British justice that cases should be tried in public and this consideration had to outweigh the individual interests of particular persons). Suspicion/guilt may fall on an innocent party The name has already been revealed in open court (R v Arundel Justices). 4. An Either Way Offense may be tried in one of two ways: either summarily or on indictment in crown court. Usually, these cases require the defendant to declare either his guilt or innocence regarding the charges levied against him. A declaration of guilt leads to an immediate conviction by summary trial of the magistrates. However, if certain evidence proves that the crime committed belongs to a higher authority court, then the magistrates my bump up the proceedings to the Crown Court for final sentencing. A not guilty plea, on the other hand, means that the case shall go to trial before the magistrates. If the crime is deemed to be covered more by the authority of the higher courts, then the case may be adjourned for committal hearing in order to decide the validity of sending the case up to the Crown Court. Now we come to the part as covered by Section 8 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980. Under the act, restrictions will automatically apply to media reports on preliminary hearings of either way cases in magistrate courts in order to prevent prejudice in jury trials. These restrictions also prevent the publication of any evidence not encapsulated within the charges, previous defendant convictions, and other materials that may create prejudice during the trial. A clerk not giving out the names of the magistrates would be in the wrong. In 1987 R v Felixstowes, it was ruled that the names of the magistrates dealing with a case was a matter of public record. A stand was supported by the Magistrates Court Act 1980. 5. Section 2 of the Contempt of Court Act indicates that a published picture of an individual awaiting trial would be a breach and cause the news media to be charged with contempt of court under the strict liability rule since the case is currently active and the publishing of the picture would prove to be prejudicial to the case. 6. (a). Under Section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the Public Interest Defense allows the media to publish a general discussion on a matter of public interest. Therefore, the news media cannot be held in contempt for simply discussing a case that another person just happens to be on trial for as such, a discussion cannot serve to prejudice the case since the accused in the active trial is not being mentioned by name nor is his data being used in the report. (b). If a story is published prior to making an arrest, then charges of contempt cannot be filed against the media. However, if the news person ran the story, knowing well that an arrest may be made soon, then the article now poses a risk of prejudice, provided the accused name was used in the article. In such a scenario, it may be possible to bring contempt charges forward as covered under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This is because the act clearly states that a publication may be held in contempt under the strict liability rule since the article poses a substantial risk or prejudice to the now accused. (c.) Under Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, it is an offense to bring or use any sort of electronic media device such as a tape recorder to make tapes of the proceedings. However, audio recordings may be permitted provided that it shall be used solely for the purpose of individual or journalistic means. This is clearly explained under Part I.2 of the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction that allows an individual to apply for leave to record provided that “the existence of any reasonable need on the part of the applicant, whether a litigant or a person connected with the press or broadcasting” and whether use of a recorder “would disturb the proceedings or distract or worry witnesses or other participants.” (d). Section 8 declares that an offense is committed if a person seeks to disclose information about statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced, or votes cast by jury members during the course of their deliberations. It I,s however, not a violation of section 8 for someone on jury duty and discussing general topics with other people provided no specifics of the case he is on the jury of shall be mentioned in the course of the discussion. Read More