The Spectator and the jury

A clear breach of the law does not mean that the law was right to begin with.

Rod Liddle was an idiot to seek to publish an article which anyone with the slightest  knowledge of media law would tell you risked a prosecution for contempt.   Whoever at the Spectator took the decision to publish the article was an even greater idiot.  For, as Brian Cathcart rightly points out, the publication posed a genuine threat to a trial which Stephen Lawrence’s family and many others had worked so hard to achieve.  In the end the Spectator was prosecuted for a breach of a specific court order rather than under the general law of contempt; but either sanction would have applied in this situation.

But.  

I am afraid there is a but, for as stupid as the Spectator and Liddle were in publishing the article, it does not make the general law of contempt - which polices publicity in criminal proceedings - correct.  A trial is a matter of public importance; and so in a free society, journalists and the public should be able to discuss the case in court in open and robust terms.  An exception to this should be when such exercises of free speech undermine that other great liberal value of a right to a fair trial.

And here lies a significant problem.  For whilst judges and lay magistrates can, it seems, be trusted to block out adverse publicity when there is a case before them to adjudicate, such respect is not accorded to juries.  Indeed, the law of England and Wales is extremely paternalistic in respect of juries, and often jurors themselves will be punished for seeking further information on the trials on which they have to decide.  Some may say that such protection is unrealistic and ask if the worldliness of jurors is not wanted then why do we have juries in the first place.  On the other hand, however, any defendant should be allowed to answer only the case put against them in court.  It would be wrong for a defendant’s fate to be based on something on which they have not had an opportunity to make a case (and this applies to justices of the Supreme Court in the Julian Assange appeal as much as any hapless juror caught surfing the internet).

Furthermore, the general  law of contempt serves a useful service in regulating the conduct of the press when someone is arrested or charged.  It is not perfect, as the examples of Christopher Jefferies and Robert Murat demonstrate; but it is likely that such prejudicial coverage would be worse if there was no enforcement of contempt law at all.  If we lost the law of contempt generally then the monsterings of suspects would face no real check.

But the paternalistic attitude towards jurors is also creating artificial situations.  The last decade or so has seen it possible for anyone to publish on the internet.  It has also made it possible for jurors to research at ease, regardless of their clear duties to the court.   It is not enough for the law to pretend this will not happen, even if it continues to punish severely those jurors who transgress.

How the competing rights to free expression and to a fair trial should balance is a difficult, if not impossible, question to answer satisfactorily.  Neither liberal principle will always trump the other.  The courts therefore need to find a sensible approach which accords with the habits and expectations of the citizens who will serve as jurors, and those who will discuss live cases using social media.

Just because Liddle and the Spectator should have known better on this occasion, it does not make the general law relating to discussing and reporting cases in the news appropriate in all circumstances.  Justice and free speech are two pillars supporting a free society, and we need to soon work out a way that they do not readily collide.

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

The Spectator magazine, of which Rod Liddle is an associate editor and columnist.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump's inauguration signals the start of a new and more unstable era

A century in which the world's hegemonic power was a rational actor is about to give way to a more terrifying reality. 

For close to a century, the United States of America has been the world’s paramount superpower, one motivated by, for good and for bad, a rational and predictable series of motivations around its interests and a commitment to a rules-based global order, albeit one caveated by an awareness of the limits of enforcing that against other world powers.

We are now entering a period in which the world’s paramount superpower is neither led by a rational or predictable actor, has no commitment to a rules-based order, and to an extent it has any guiding principle, they are those set forward in Donald Trump’s inaugural: “we will follow two simple rules: hire American and buy American”, “from this day forth, it’s going to be America first, only America first”.

That means that the jousting between Trump and China will only intensify now that he is in office.  The possibility not only of a trade war, but of a hot war, between the two should not be ruled out.

We also have another signal – if it were needed – that he intends to turn a blind eye to the actions of autocrats around the world.

What does that mean for Brexit? It confirms that those who greeted the news that an US-UK trade deal is a “priority” for the incoming administration, including Theresa May, who described Britain as “front of the queue” for a deal with Trump’s America, should prepare themselves for disappointment.

For Europe in general, it confirms what should already been apparent: the nations of Europe are going to have be much, much more self-reliant in terms of their own security. That increases Britain’s leverage as far as the Brexit talks are concerned, in that Britain’s outsized defence spending will allow it acquire goodwill and trade favours in exchange for its role protecting the European Union’s Eastern border.

That might allow May a better deal out of Brexit than she might have got under Hillary Clinton. But there’s a reason why Trump has increased Britain’s heft as far as security and defence are concerned: it’s because his presidency ushers in an era in which we are all much, much less secure. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.