Media Law lecture -- Sources
February 20, 2012
Questions from last week:
What is a §39 order?
- Court can make an order to prevent the identification of person aged 17 and younger involved in criminal or civil proceedings.
What case prevents political entities suing for libel?
- Darbisher County v. Telegraph (?)
Identifying a celebrity’s house?
Deputy to Attorney General
- Solicitor General — Edward Garnier
Chatham House Rules
- Rules of practice wherein a free and frank discussion can take place amongst individuals
- You cannot attribute what was said in a meeting to a particular individual.
Main case in privacy law?
- Naomi Campbell v. Mirror Group newspapers (House of Lords) 2004
- EU Court of Human Rights: Princess Caroline Von Hanover v. Germany (2004)
Article 8 of Human Rights
For next week:
- What are the rules on payments to witnesses in criminal cases? (PCC and Ofcom)
- Which forms of media are subject to a duty to report with due impartiality on political matters and matters of public controversy? Radio, television, Internet and newspapers?
- What does the regulation of investigative powers act (RIPA) prohibit journalists doing?
- What are the rules on reporting suicides? (PCC and Ofcom)
- What is ATVOD?
- Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), what is the difference between excluded material and special procedure material?
Protecting a Journalist’s Sources
Domestic law v. Europe
- Not a lot of protection under §10; other interests put above those of journalists.
X v Morgan Grampian 1990
- Leaker gave documents to Morgan Grampian. House of Lords didn’t agree, fined Goodwin £5,000 for Contempt of Court when he wouldn’t give it up.
Goodwin v UK 1996
- Goodwin took to European Court of Human Rights. Came down on his side, argued the order was not appropriate and should not have order him to give up source.
Prevention of crime
- Sec of State for Defence v Guardian (1985)
- Also known as the Tisdall Affair
Interests of Justice
Camelot Group v Centaur Communications Ltd (1999)
- Article had disclosed directors had received payrise, while money for charities had not risen substantially. Court argued there was a public interest in disclosure, “there’s a risk that an employee proven untrustworthy in one respect might be untrustworthy in another.”
Elton John v Express Newspapers (2000)
- Elton John wanted to know who had disclosed material from a bin in his room.
- Inquiry wasn’t necessary; could be identified outside the court. Sir Elton hadn’t taken the lengths outside the court.
Ashworth Hospital v MGN Ltd (2002)
- Hospital wanted the source; Ackroyd said it was she mid-way.
Merseyside NHS Trust v Robin Ackroyd (2006)
- Hospital then went after Ackroyd, court ruled in her favour.
Journalistic material and the police
Terrorism Act 2000
© 2018 Ændrew Rininsland, except where otherwise noted.