Most people agree democracies are underpinned by a free, fearless press
and an incorruptible judicial system. This leads straight to this week’s
issue: should witnesses in criminal cases be paid for their stories by
the media?
The Lord Chancellor, Lord McKay, in the aftermath of the grim display of
chequebook journalism in the Rosemary West trial, is proposing an
amendment to the Contempt of Court Act to make the practice illegal. The
Press Complaints Commission produced its response on Thursday - a
significantly tougher clause to be enshrined within its criticised non-
statutory code of practice. Lord Wakeham, chairman of the PCC, is also
asking Parliament’s Heritage Committee for time, yet again, to show that
self-regulation can work.
The PCC argues that there have only been four infamous recent cases
(West, Peter Sutcliffe, the Thorpe trial and the Moors Murders) when
criminal trial payments have created an outcry. With an election
clogging up business, time is on the media’s side. But it really won’t
do. The rewritten clause says that editors authorising payments ‘in the
public interest’ must demonstrate for the first time what has been
achieved through waving cash at previously mute or undiscovered
witnesses. A witness accepting payments will be advised that prosecution
and defence lawyers must be told. So payments would become more
difficult, but still legally possible.
It is clear the media is skating on thin ice. Freedom to report and
investigate needs to be balanced against the greater interest of
administering justice. Witnesses to a criminal action have a public duty
to give evidence honestly and freely. However miserable their
circumstances, they should not be tempted to exploit their experiences
for financial gain, during a trial. Even the suspicion that people might
spice up their story should be reason enough to outlaw the practice.
What can a newspaper or TV journalist uncover by making payments that
can possibly be so important to society, that it outweighs the primary
need for untainted justice? The Lord Chancellor is correct in his desire
to protect the judicial system and evident conclusion that it is a vain
hope to imagine that self-regulation in such a cut-throat business could
be watertight.
Context matters too. Certain newspapers thrive on behaving badly. The
Sun published that fake video of Hewitt and Princess Diana without
considering whether it served any public interest - even if true. The
Daily Mirror’s attack on the Germans at the height of football mania was
thuggish. Last week’s media scrum around two English schools was
shameful.
Commentary about current press standards is dominated by a clutch of ex-
editors, who dole out sympathetic treatment to current editors, but
misjudge the mood of the country. I long for newspapers to rediscover
their mission.
