The Spectator magazine ordered by court to pay Lawrence family …

The Spectator magazine was ordered by court to pay Lawrence family for the ‘agony it caused by nearly wrecking the Old Bailey trial of his killers.’

The Spectator was fined more than £5,000 in costs and damages for breaking reporting restrictions. Both Mr and Mrs Lawrence made it clear to the court neither wanted any money but the magazine was ordered to pay on the discretion of the District Judge Howard Riddle.

Judge Riddle referring to the complexity and sensitivity of this long awaited trial stated that it “ hung in the balance” for a short period after the publication of the article written by journalist Rod Liddle. The latter wrote the media had already judged the killers as “ bang to rights” and detailed their criminal pasts.

Judge Riddle stated ‘ All parties took very clear, strong and sensible efforts to make sure the trial process was not prejudiced and an Order was made under the Criminal Justice Act Despite the very clear terms of the order … the Spectator published the article. It placed the trial briefly in jeopardy.

The additional burden that Mr and Mrs Lawrence were forced to endure is unimaginable and their tenacity for basic justice must be loudly commended. As ‘gongs’ and knighthoods are being thrown around for crime victims what title is befitting the Lawrence family’s years and years of ordeal, and triumph?

When will this family be allowed to grieve? It is another example as to why it is time for the media to be formally bound to robust privacy law as in France; because the UK media is unable and disinclined to regulate itself. On too many crucial and deeply personal occasions it has recklessly disrupted personal lives of crime victims and potentially interfered with the process of justice. This is never in the public interest and must come to an end.

(Source’ The London Evening Standard, 7 June 2012)

Advertisements

Hopefully, the UK courts will be diligent and robust with Rebekah Brooks, ex-head of News International

Hopefully, the UK courts will be diligent and robust with Rebekah Brooks, ex-head of News International when her trial begins. This will be in contrast to the embarrassing performance from the Leveson Inquiry team when they appeared to relinquish control of the purpose of the formal interview and allowed Rebekah Brooks to trivialize and dominate her ‘interview’. Helps if your friend the prime minister has prior cite of the statements beforehand!

Lest we forget, the grubby type of people that go about taping others and intruding into their lives, including a family in early deep grief following the murder of their teenage daughter. These people did so because the culture and hierarchy of News International condoned such grubby conduct; implicitly, or explicitly.

The public will expect the courts to evidence best judge-craft and appropriate prison sentences for those that allegedly undermined a murder investigation, trespassed on victim’s grief, invaded the privacy of many and attempted to conceal documents required for the News International hacking investigation.

Hopefully, all those found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt aside from prison may be stripped of their wealth with all proceeds going into a new national fund for compensating innocent victims of violent crime. This will make some small recompense towards the massive cuts in crime victim compensation and resources that Rebekah Brook’s friend; David Cameron’s government has merrily and cynically pushed through. Rebekah Brooks was quoted as stating, “ we deplore this weak and unjust decision.”

Justice must be diligent! It is costing the people of this country too much and we must learn to act more swiftly in removing the unacceptable and this includes our shambolic and oppressive coalition government!

Showing and hiding faces – when the media chooses

Recently, the heinous crime of alleged paedophilia and child abuse was been identified in Plymouth, Devon. One of the main alleged abusers is a woman that worked in a children’s nursery naturally sending revulsion into the hearts and minds of the nation; not least the unsuspecting parents using the nursery. Within hours following detailed police work and the woman’s arrest she was named, her face photo and personal details made public across the national media. This included details that directly impact on her husband and children and we do not know about their innocence, or not. Her children may also be direct victims, or secondary victims by association but their lives will never be the same.

Why then is the alleged killer of Mr Ian Tomlinson, a police officer, if we are allowed to use the term, is allowed to evade having his name and face published along with his family details and equal publicity? Do the national media believe his alleged crime and conduct – that may lead to charges of manslaughter – entitle him to be hidden and protected? Why are charges so slow to be formalised by the police with so much evidence before them? Do the police support violent crime and abuse of their own weapons by officers?

What these perpetrators of violence require is exposure and publication of who they are, their images to forewarn others and alert the public. It is inappropriate for any alleged killer not be photographed and named by the media. What this police officer did and abuses committed by other police on the G20 demonstration was disgusting and excessive. It has brought the police force into further disrepute and hiding them does nothing other than generate public contempt. The full weight of the legal system and media is needed in both cases. Bigots and paedophilia should have nowhere to hide.