Friday, March 23, 2012

Sunday Grieve, the Attorney General, revealed that even before he was appointed to this position, he was concerned about the increased media contempt for contempt of court law of 1981.

He realized "the growing tendency of the press to test the limits of acceptability in the reporting of criminal cases," he said tonight.

"Sometimes it seemed that the press had lost all sense of internal restriction and could, by the way the right to print what they wanted, protected by the right of" free expression "without any responsibilities attached to it. "

In other words, even in the wings, which could detect the dangerous path that newspaper publishers have taken over the publication of documents on persons who can prevent them from having a trial fair.

Grieve, speaking at the City University of London, was particularly upset by how he dared to publish documents of the criminal history of a person before been attempted.

He said: ".. I was afraid that the information is not controlled, for example, could undermine the jury system should jurors reach a verdict solely on the basis of evidence that they appear in court "

was also exerted by the tabloid treatment of Christopher Jeffries, the innocent arrested by police investigating the murder of Joanna Yeates Bristol architect.

That's why we entered two documents and proceedings, the Daily Mirror and The Sun, to cover that vilified Jefferies.

I was struck by the outbreak of Grieve, in the case because he also spoke of ethical concerns.

"Although it is not a legal consideration," he said, "I would say there is a moral imperative ... the need to observe good manners, reporting on these cases. "

Not a parliamentarian to ignore the careful and measured approach of a judge to decide whether an injunction should be granted.

There are well-established principles of comity between Parliament and the courts and the House of Commons has determined that the sub judice rule applies to proceedings which are active and do not relate to movement debate or question.
Parliament and the courts should each be left to do their work without interference from the other -. Except in the most exceptional circumstances "


Blog Archive