24.12.24
The dangers of reporting on ongoing legal proceedings
Journalists typically get a pretty robust legal education when it comes to reporting on criminal investigations, arrests, and ongoing trials. Those working for newspapers will regularly work with clearance lawyers to properly understand the rules, and avoid finding themselves in contempt of court. It would appear to be harder for broadcast journalists, who sometimes have to answer questions and give reports without the benefit of sketching out the entire soundbite to a lawyer first.
The BBC has apologised after its reporting led to the collapse of the criminal trial of Sophie Harvey, who was accused of illegally aborting her baby. Harvey had pleaded not guilty: claiming she had bought abortion pills online, but never taken them. When reporting from the trial, the BBC’s ‘Points West’ show had shown archive footage of an unrelated crime scene and stated as fact that Harvey had taken the pill.
Harvey’s lawyer successfully argued that the jury ought to be discharged because the reporting could affect her credibility in their eyes. Judge Ian Lawrie KC agreed, described the BBC’s reporting as ”appalling and sloppy” and dismissed the jury.
There has been no suggestion that contempt proceedings will be brought against the journalists involved, despite this part of the contempt laws being designed specifically to prevent reporting that risks prejudicing court proceedings, interfering with the administration of justice, and costing the taxpayer significant sums of money. Harvey and Benham will not stand trial again, after the CPS accepted guilty pleas to the lesser offence of procuring a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage.
Legal Disclaimer
Articles are intended as an introduction to the topic and do not constitute legal advice.