The press
The press and the Ripper
Paul Johnson
Nothing confuses journalists or even lawyers more than contempt of court. An old judge once said: 'It is like an elephant . . . I can recognise a contempt when I see it, but I'm damned if I can define it.' The new Contempt of Court Bill, designed to clarify the law, is a watered-down version of the 1974 Thillimore Report, itself wellreceived. It got an unopposed second reading in the Lords last month. but was attacked on all sides in the process. One of its objects is to bring our law into line with the ruling of the European Court, which held that the House of Lords decision against the Sunday Times in the notorious thalidomide case infringed Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. According to Lord Hailsham, Clause 6 of the new Bill puts the matter right. According to the Law Society, Clause 6 does nothing of the sort and leaves the law where it stands. When the Lord Chancellor and the solicitors' trade union flatly disagree, whom should a simple journalist believe?
Last week the unroar generated by the so-called 'Ripper Squad' arrest of a suspect led the Solicitor-General to warn editors about prejudicing the trial. The Guardian castigated the 'extraordinary hysteria' of the coverage and 'the way it trampled gaily through both the spirit and the letter of the law'; a fair trial 'would now seem hard to envisage'. Rarely in modern times, echoed The Times, 'can the media in general have acted with such disregard for the law and the fundamental tenets of British justice'. 'Most papers,' said the Observer, 'behaved as if the laws of contempt either did not exist or carried no weight'. The police also got stick for holding what the Guardian termed 'a jubilant press conference'; they would . bear 'a large measuie of responsibility' for any prejudice. The Times called for an inquiry into 'how certain facts came into the hands of the media' and demanded 'action against any policeman found to have been providing the prejudicial details for publication.'
But here again there was flat disagree ment. One of the most experienced trial judges, Melford Stevenson, said on TV that no contempt had been committed since no one had declared the suspect guilty. Indeed one journal, the New Statesman, did the opposite and insisted: 'Peter William Sutcliffe is innocent'. Lord Rawlinson, a former Attorney-General, congratulated The Times on remaining 'loyal to such old-fashioned ideas' as that 'a man was presumed innocent until proven guilty'. Not so, said the Observer: The Times also had 'offended'. I suppose The Times main headline, 'Ripper Squad Suspect Faces Serious Charge', over the story of the arrest, might be construed as contempt; as also might the Guardian's decision to print photos of 13 alleged Ripper victims over the same story. Is not even a marginal incitement to prejudice by the 'serious' papers more likely to influence juries than all the hullabaloo of the populars?
The confusion is illustrated by a question asked by John Junor in his Sunday Express column: did not statements at the press conference 'add up to a police pronouncement of total belief in Peter Sutcliffe's guilt and to a flagrant contempt of court?' But it is obvious that the police believe in the guilt of a man they charge: Jiinor's line of reasoning would lead to the ridiculous conclusion that the very issue of an arrest warrant is a contempt, since it is bound to create prejudice.
In the circumstances it was understandable that the police should be pleased, and show it. Understandable too that Fleet Street should go to town the next day. I agree with Keith.Waterhouse's view in the Mirror that 'our average jurors have a higher standard of intelligence and integrity than the moralisers give them credit for'. A juror might be influenced if a paper publishes prejudicial material which is inadmissible evidence, such as previous convictions. But as Mr Waterhouse asks: 'Is there, in fact, any case on record of a jury being known to have been influenced by what its members have read in the papers or heard on TV?'
To understand the law of contempt, it helps to recall that it had its origins in the desire of Dark Age kings to preserve peace at their courts. To draw your sword or strike a blow in the King's house was to hold his authority in contempt and so was punishable, often by death. That great jurist Henry LI extended the principle to all courts presided over by royal judges. To fight in court, interrupt a case. abuse or threaten a judge or a witness, all this was to interfere with justice and so a contempt 'in the face of the court'.
By further extension a contempt is committed by any publication which destroys confidence in the fairness and honesty of a court. That is the ground, for instance, on which the French government is prosecuting Le Monde, and a fine to-do it has caused, for French judges are widely believed to be vulnerable to government pressure and therefore a legitimate subject of political criticism. That does not apply in England, and in my view by far the most serious form of contempt today is for a publication to seek to undermine a court's authority in the minds of ordinary people.
The new Bill rightly closes a loophole here by prohibiting the publication of interviews with jurors where a particular trial is identified. But contempts will continue, particularly on the Left, which traditionally views courts of law (let alone the police) as inherently right-wing institutions. In the last government Michael Foot brought the courts into contempt by accusing judges of bias. Last week the National Council for Civil Liberties published a report on the inquest into the death of Blair Peach which accuses the police of lying in court and says: The coroner, Dr John Burton, with his confused and inaccurate direction to the jury, made a fair hearing of the issues impossible'. Is not this likely to undermine confidence not only in cases presided over by this coroner but in coroners' courts in general? Perhaps it might be in order for the law officers to take up the NCCL accusation and oblige them to prove it in court, if they. can. But I may be wrong: the law of contempt puzzles me too.
Previous page
