NCTJ Law

lauren.sharkey
Flashcards by lauren.sharkey, updated more than 1 year ago
lauren.sharkey
Created by lauren.sharkey almost 6 years ago
402
3

Description

Flashcards on NCTJ Law, created by lauren.sharkey on 11/03/2014.

Resource summary

Question Answer
Magistrates' Court Act (s8 reporting restrictions) - Stop jury from being influenced by media reports of prelim hearings - 'No risk of serious prejudice' - Evidence + previous convictions shouldn't be published - Can publish names, addresses, ages + occupations of d + witnesses + charges - Breach = £5000 max fine + costs - S8 restrictions don't apply if d lifts them, when case concluded, or d dealt with summarily
Juveniles (s49 Children + Young Persons Act 1933) - Youth Court max punishment = 2yr t+d - V serious cases sent to CC so s8 automatic reporting restrictions apply to prelim hearings - s49: d/w can't be identified in any YC report. Age + gender allowed - Plymouth Evening Herald 2003: fined £1500 for pub pixelated photo of 15 yr old boy. Relatives recognised him - s49 anonymity lifted to help obtain witnesses + when in public interest - Jigsaw identification
Sexual Offences (Sexual Offences Act 2003) - Victims get lifetime anonymity - Anonymity no longer applies when victim dies, if it'll help obtain witnesses, by court order to lift a 'substantial + unreasonable restriction on reporting' if in public interest, if victim gives written consent (16+), if pros for making false allegation - PCC Clause 3: 'Press must not identify victims of sexual assault unless adequate justification + legally free to do so' - PCC Clause 7: 'Press must not ID children under 16 who are victims/witnesses involving sex offences'. OFCOM says no ID of under 18
Contempt (Contempt of Court Act 1981) - Media risk contempt by vilifying suspect. contaminating witness ev by interviewing in detail etc. - Common law contempt: pub material which creates substantial risk of serious prejudice to pending proceedings - Strict liability contempt: same but for active proceedings (WASO) - Proceedings active again when appeal lodged - 1981 A-G gave assurance that no fear of prosecution if assisting police. Since 1981, no pros of media under COCA for this
Contempt defences - S3: not knowing case active. Must prove all reasonable care was taken by checking - S5: protects topical issue coverage e.g. assisted suicide. Avoid detailed ref to case
Contempt: what not to publish - Assumptions of guilt - Previous convictions - Witness interviews - Can publish common ground info e.g. where body found, names of victims/accused
Contempt: case studies 1. Chris Jefferies v Daily Mirror/The Sun [2011] - CJ arrested for murder. Vilifying headlines next to images of CJ gave impression he could have committed crime. Papers fined £50,000 + £18,000 2. Ryan Ward v Daily Mail/The Sun [2011] - Sites pub photo of RW, on trial for murder, posing with gun. Fined £15,000 3. Leeds Utd footballers v Sunday Mirror [2002] - Victim's dad interview pub claiming racial motives while jury deliberating. Fined £75,000 as trial collapsed 4. Dr Leonard Arthur v Sunday Express + Daily Mail [1981] - Pub comments alleging that dr let baby starve. SE fined £1000 + group £10,000. DM denied contempt arguing article discussing mercy killing - found not guilty
Contempt: how to answer in exam - Are proceedings active? WASO - If active, indicate nothing can be published that might create a substantial risk of serious prejudice/impediment - Outline what may/may not create this risk + explain why - Refer to examples where relevant
Photography/filming in court (s41 Criminal Justice Act 1945) - S45 makes it illegal to take any photo/film/sketch of people in/entering/leaving court building - Would put added strain on w/d - Breach = fines up to £15,000 - Media can use a court artist who goes outside to sketch
Defamation - Defam statements tend to expose person to hatred/ridicule, cause them to be avoided, lowers them in estimation of right-thinking members of society - Published = libel - damages awarded - Spoken = tort of slander
Defamation: what claimant must prove 1. They have been defamed 2. Identified. (Doesn't have to include name - Sunday Mirror [2005] paid £100,000 to man falsely ID'd as rapist - If says member of group with no other IDing detail, all members of small group can sue - Riches v News Group [1986]: report said unnamed Banbury detective had raped a woman. All 10 members of group successfully sued for libel 3. Published: each pub = new libel (repetition rule)
Case studies - LM magazine [2000] shut down after jury awarded £375,000 damages to 2 TV reporters/ITN over story accusing them of sensationalising emaciated Muslim in detention camp pic - Mirror Group paper paid £15,000 in settlement of defam but then given costs bill of £382,000 (reduced appeal) - BBC [1994] had to pay £1.5m costs when damages = £60,000. Libel in Panorama 'The Halcion Nightmare' drug
Defamation: defences 1. Justification: - Pub material can be proved true in court - Must have enough ev to persuade jury - Only applies to statements of fact - Robert Dee v Telegraph Media Group [2010]: just defence worked when sued by RD after saying ranked as worst pro tennis player in the world - 54 defeats 2. Honest comment: - Pub comment must be honest opinion - Recognisable as comment not fact - Opinion based on provably true facts - Subject in public interest - Convery v Irish News [2007]: paper sued for libel over restaurant review. Successful hc defence
Defamation: defences - absolute privilege - Fair + accurate reports of judicial proceedings which are pub contemporaneously - Fair reports present summary of both sides, have no big inaccuracies, make clear d denies charges - Accurate reports: all allegations must be attributed to correct person - Contemporaneous: must be pub in next available issue/bcast - Proceedings: can't say what said outside courtroom or from public gallery if defam - Daily Sport [1993]: reported opening of pros case but didn't include defence cross-exam - paid damages to policeman acquitted of indecent assault
Defamation: defences - qualified privilege (Part 1/2 of the Schedule to Defamation Act 1996) - Available when important that facts should be known in public interest - Reports must be fair + accurate record of oral/written statement, in public interest + pub without malice - Part 1 lists where qp applies: mainly reporting of Parliamentary proceedings - Contents of press release are protected by qp as they are 'taken as read' - Part 2 gives qp to fair/acc copies of official notices issued for public by police, councils etc.
Defamation: defences - how to answer in exam - Identify relevant defence + say why applies - Outline all requirements of defence - Apply defence to scenario
Defamation: other defences 1. Accord + satisfaction (apologies): to halt libel case on grounds issue already been disposed of e.g. by correction/apology 2. Offer of amends: where someone unintentionally defamed e.g. using name of real person as example 3. Leave + licence (consent): subject consented to pub so can't sue 4. S1 defence of innocent dissemination: for newsagents, ISPs etc. where d didn't know pub was defam of claimant - Godfrey v Demon Internet [2001: ISP successfully sued for material on newsgroup it hosted + left online for 10 days after receiving complaint
Confidentiality: Megarry Tests 3 elements claimant has to prove breach of confidence: 1. Quality of confidence - if already public, isn't confidential 2. Info imparted in confidential circumstances 3. Breach damaging to person who originally told info
Confidentiality: remedies - Injunctions: interim or super - Damages - Delivery-up: leaked material returned to owner/destroyed - Account of profits: monetary gain from leak has to pay it - Order to reveal source: Art 10 ECHR can protect journos here
Confidentiality: defences 1. Info already in public domain - Watford Observer v Sun Printers [1982]: WO wanted to pub that SP considering making 180 redundant. Had been given copy of report. Court of Appeal lifted injunction - said wasn't confidential as had sent 120 copies around 2. Public interest - Lion Laboratories v Daily Express [1985]: Court of Appeal ruled it was in public interest to publish info from internal memo from breathalyser company casting doubt on accuracy when police using it to stop drink driving 3. Consent given by owner of con info 4. Material exposes iniquity (crime etc.)
Confidentiality: case study Michael Douglas + Catherine Z-J + Northern + Shell Plc v Hello! [2000] - OK! had exclusive £1m deal to publish wedding photos - Hello! got unauthorised pics from pap and rushed next issue to print - All sued H for breach of confidence. Ruled that H had infringed privacy + ordered to pay £14,600 damages + £1m damages to OK
Privacy: 2-stage test (established in Campbell) 1. Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy? Yes - subject's ECHR Article 8 rights apply (respect for private life etc.) 2. This weighed against Article 10 rights on media which protects freedom of expression if pub in public interest
Privacy: PCC/OFCOM Clause 3 PCC Code: - Everyone's entitled to respect for private life, health + correspondence - Unacceptable to pic inds in private place without their consent - Public interest = story can run unless kids S8 OFCOM Broadcasting Code: - Any privacy infringement must be warranted - public interest... - Shouldn't bcast footage of victims etc.
Privacy: case studies Naomi Campbell v MGN [2004] - NC entitled to damages after Daily Mirror reported she was having therapy at Narcotics Anonymous. Pub pics + details von Hannover v Germany [2004] - Princess Caroline of Monaco's privacy breached after pics of daily life pub. Being stalked by paps interfered with Article 8 right to be social with others
Copyright (Copyright, Design + Patents Act 1998) - Gives rights/protection to author/creator of book, art, music etc. - Automatic - No cright in news/idea but if skill etc. used to develop, then this subject to cright - Usually lasts 70 years after author's death, 50 yrs for software, 125 years for crown - Fair dealing exemption: can use crighted work if correctly attributed for reporting current events, review/research - No public interest defence but if exposes something illegal, can defend - When commissioned, commissioner has privacy right
Journo sources - Clause 14 PCC: journos have moral obligation to protect confidential sources - S10 COCA 1981: journos should protect sources unless necessary in interests of justice (Bill Goodwin), national security (Sarah Tisdell) or to prevent crime (Jeremy Warner)
Show full summary Hide full summary

Similar

Plano de Revisão Geral
miminoma
Germany 1918-39
Cam Burke
Teaching Using GoConqr's Tools
Micheal Heffernan
Conocimiento General de Aeronaves
Adriana Forero
Meteorologia I
Adriana Forero
CCNA Security 210-260 IINS - Exam 3
Talitha Botha
Mapa Mental para Resumir y Conectar Ideas
marisol mendez
Abordaje investigativo en la adminitración
Yose Torres
Calentamiento Global,Cambio Climático y Salud
Edwin Ortiz
Láminas de Histología
Mariana Quevedo
La estadistica, mapa conceptual
Aury Bustamante