Silence in court
THE LAW R. A. CLINE
There is not much doubt that something went wrong at Leeds Assizes and the Lord Chief Justice has now in effect said so. 'The facts will out' is not enough; the facts must out and the prosecution must be allowed to describe the circumstances of an offence, particularly a murder, not just to satisfy the news-hungry press —that is the least important aspect of the affair —but so that the accused himself, who is, after all, about to spend a considerable period in con- finement, may hear stated in public to what facts he is pleading guilty.
Too much has been made of the need that the press should know what -is going on; even the Lord Chief Justice lit his declaration ban- ning any future silences of the same kind spoke of 'the right of the press and the public [in that order] to know the circumstances of the crime.' It is perfectly true that a vigilant reporter can unearth some unjust or illogical act committed by a magistrate or a High Court judge, give it rough treatment in his newspaper and_keep the lawyers on their toes. No doubt this is how the Leeds incident itself came to light. But while acknowledging this important function, people in public life, particularly press-conscious poli- ticians, are reluctant to point out that such publicity has its dangers and should have its limits. There is, after all, a case against pub- licising the facts of a murder.
Thus it is at least arguable that the people of Bradford are no better off for knowing how or why Mr Solok killed his victim, and one or two of the more neurotic among them might well be worse off. The nastier aspects of well-publi- cised trials, like the Moors murders case, appear to leave a deposit of rancour and hostility in the minds of readers, a kind of coarsening which may emerge in different forms, sometimes in the dangerous form of imitation. Certain countries, no- more nor less civilised than our- selves, prohibit the publication of the facts about a murder; others confine them to an in- offensive mention in an inconspicuous part of the newspaper. Such measures do not stem from any greater confidence in their judiciaries (so that justice need not be seen to be done) but from the belief, which cannot be either sup- ported or impugned by evidence, that such pub- licity can do social harm.
In England we are apparently made of tougher fibre. In material matters we are protected, almost choked by paternalistic legislation which saves us from ourselves? but by contrast in matters of the mind we must, if necessary, be exposed to the worst. Every sore in the body politic is to be displayed for our enlightenment. This is the mood of the press and, to be fair to the press, it is the mood of the majority of its readers. Restrictions on reporting, like restric- tions on intrusions into privacy, are never received favourably.
Even the provision of the Criminal Justice Act restricting the reporting of preliminary pro- ceedings in magistrates' courts are still viewed with surly distrust by the journalistic profession. It has even been suggested that the Leeds Assize incident has revealed some flaw in this new law. It has done nothing of the sort. Before the Act an accused suffered the ordeal of two bouts of publicity, one when his case first came up for preliminary investigation before the local beaks and the prosecutor's case was usually the only part to be reported; the second when he was tried before the higher court. Since the change in the law the first hearing is temporarily not to be reported and only the second can be reported at the time. Thus he endures only one bout.
What went wrong at Leeds was that the judge did not permit or perhaps discouraged counsel for the prosecution and for the accused from addressing him because the judge- could only impose one sentence whatever was said. He was wrong and this will never recur if the Lord Chief Justice's direction is followed. But this does not diminish the virtue of the temporary restriction on reporting before the magistrates which caused great prejudice before the trial.
In mitigation but not justification of the judge's error it should be said that the criminal courts are already facing a huge burden of work and any method of avoiding loss of work- ing time is desirable. If counsels' speeches are simply made for the benefit of the public and not the judge whose hands are tied anyway, why not let everyone have access to the depositions (which set out the prosecution evidence)? There is no defence plea possible in a murder case like the one at Leeds, where the accused pleads guilty, because there is only one sentence. So there is nothing of the accused's case for the press to report. But now there will be a twenty- five-minute speech by the Crown Counsel set- ting out in painstaking detail the circumstances of the offence (and incidentally many such speeches contain facts which the accused, though he admits his guilt, does not accept), the reporters' notebooks will be filled and every- one, except possibly the accused and those wait- ing in custody for their trial, will go home satis- fied that justice has been 'seen to be done.' Some highly questionable procedures can be laid at the door of that vastly overworked phrase.
Previous page
