Media Reporting on Criminal Cases and the Principle of Open Justice
Rutland County Council's reported attempt to restrict all local media coverage of the recent sexual assault cases in Oakham, and Leicestershire Police's visit to a local media outlet with a similar directive, are contrary to fundamental principles of UK law. The principle of open justice is a cornerstone of the legal system, ensuring that justice is administered publicly and can be scrutinised by the public, primarily through media reporting.
Why Authorities Can't Impose Media Restrictions
In the UK, neither the police nor a local authority has the legal power to impose a media ban or reporting restrictions on a criminal case. This authority is held exclusively by the courts. The rationale for this is rooted in several key legal principles:
Freedom of Expression: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, guarantees the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to impart and receive information. This right is vital for a democratic society and is particularly important for the press, who act as a public watchdog. Any restriction on this right must be both necessary and proportionate.
Contempt of Court Act 1981: This legislation governs media reporting on active legal proceedings to prevent a "substantial risk of serious prejudice" to a trial. The law places the responsibility on media outlets to not publish material that could improperly influence a jury or interfere with the course of justice. Breaching these rules is a serious offence, known as contempt of court.
Judicial Discretion: Only a judge can issue a formal order to restrict reporting. These orders are not made lightly. A judge will only impose them in specific, defined circumstances, such as:
To protect the identity of a victim of a sexual offence or a juvenile.
To safeguard the fairness of a trial by preventing prejudicial information (e.g., prior convictions or untested allegations) from being published.
In cases involving national security.
A court's decision to impose reporting restrictions must be a careful balancing act between the public's right to know and the rights of the individuals involved in the case, particularly the defendant's right to a fair trial. The judge's role is to ensure that the restrictions are the minimum necessary to achieve their purpose.
The Role of the Media and a Police Investigation
The local media outlet, Oakham and Rutland News, is correct in its position that it will only abide by a court-ordered ruling. The police's visit and the council's objection represent an overreach of their authority. While both the police and the council may have concerns about the details of a case being public, particularly regarding the privacy of victims, they cannot unilaterally dictate what the media can and cannot publish.
It's notable that the Leicestershire Police Professional Standards Department is investigating a complaint against two officers in this matter, which suggests that the force is taking the issue of improper interference with the media seriously.
The Rutland Times, Rutland Mercury and Oakham Nub News have continued to report on the case.
Oakham and Rutland News is aware of details of the alleged sexual assault at Rutland County Council and has not published any details that would identify the victim or this horrible incident.
Leicestershire Police have charged Benedict Azam, a 34-year-old with no fixed address, in connection with the incidents. Azam has also been charged with two other assaults: one on Oakham's high street on the same day as the alleged council assault, and another on Burley Road the day before. He is scheduled to appear at Leicester Crown Court on October 6th to enter a plea.
