Wordblog

Not too long ago the idea that the government should distribute leaflets with details of offenders in the courts would have been totally ridiculous. That was the job of local newspapers.

Yet the idea of “naming and shaming” offenders is floated on the front page of the Guardian today. It is seen, by Home Office officials, as a way of “restoring confidence in the justice system and embarrassing offenders who might otherwise go unnoticed”.

The report says:

Research assessed by the Home Office has shown that criminals hate publicity as much as a fine or a jail sentence.

The proposal was pushed for inclusion as a flagship measure in a community justice green paper, but is being opposed by ministry of justice officials who fear that it will be seen as extreme vigilantism.

If it is “extreme vigilantism” that is what local papers used to do. When I started work I was often approached by people enquiring how they could keep their case out of the paper and sometimes asking how much it would cost. Criminals and and lesser offenders (including people who did not want their spouses to find out about motoring infractions) were more worried about the publicity than anything else.

I was able to say honestly that my job was to report everything that came to court. I would tell them that they could speak to the editor as he was the only person with the authority to decide to suppress the item.

It seems that there are some people in the Home Office who believe the public wants to read this information. They are, I think, right.

The issue of court reporting in newspapers is not as simple as this makes it sound. When I started work, courts were straightforward and quick: covering courts was a high productivity was of producing lot of copy.

Now procedures have changed and court reporting has become much more difficult and time consuming. Blanket coverage is no longer simply produced.