Wordblog

Journalism in a changing world

A tale of two Contempt of Court Act orders

By Andrew Grant-Adamson • Nov 1st, 2007 • Category: Internet, Journalism

Last week a district judge in Norwich barred the press from printing the addresses of two police sergeants accused of failing to take proper care of a man who was rushed to hospital after a spell in the cells.

The Eastern Daily Press argued in the magistrates court that the order was contrary to legislation and case law and should not be used to protect the “comfort or feelings” of defendants. The judge disagreed, saying there was a serious risk that members of the criminal community would target the officers and their families.

The accepted use of the Contempt of Court Act to protect the victims of blackmail was mentioned in the EDP report. A few days later the Sunday Times reported that two men had been charged with blackmail and the target was a member of the royal family.

I wondered whether giving that fact would lead to a jigsaw identification. Very quickly another piece was put into puzzle with reports, sourced to Buckingham Palace, that the target was a junior member of the family who did not undertake official royal duties.

Inevitably the name of the member of the royal family was quickly on blogs and then in newspapers outside the UK. And, being just a Google search away, effectively published in this country.

Even if the royal connection was kept secret when the case came to trial it is difficult to imagine that it and the name of the victim would not have eventually come to light.

While I feel the increasing use of the Contempt of Court Act, as in Norwich, to restrict publication of court details is undermining the principle of open justice, I have always believed it is wrong to publish the names of blackmail victims.

The Crown Prosecution Service puts the case for secrecy in blackmail cases clearly:

Although rare, blackmail is one of the ugliest and most vicious of offences. Its victims are vulnerable because in order to bring the blackmailer to justice they must themselves make public the secrets the blackmailer is threatening to expose.

The Crown Prosecution Service will not hesitate to prosecute blackmail cases and we will always seek to protect the anonymity of blackmail victims. We recognise that victims may be reluctant to come forward and give evidence against a blackmailer unless such protection is granted.

As in rape cases the protection of the identity of the victim makes it more likely that criminals will be brought before the courts.

Andrew Grant-Adamson is Andrew Grant-Adamson is a journalist who now teaches a new generation of writers, subs and editors at the University of Westminster.
Email this author | All posts by Andrew Grant-Adamson

2 Responses »

  1. Posted 1 day agoA tale of two Contempt of Court Act ordersLast week a district judge in Norwich barred the press from printing the addresses of two police sergeants accused of failing to take proper care of a man who was rushed to hospital after a spell i…

  2. [...] with …http://www.parentscentre.gov.uk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=133&threadid=517035. Wordblog » Blog Archive » A tale of two Contempt of Court Act orders1 Nov 2007 … The accepted use of the Contempt of Court Act to protect the victims of … with [...]

Leave a Reply