Law n' Order Laid Out

Following the second Law lecture, I found my views on how journalists affect the law, and how the law affects journalists weren't quite up to scratch. While I was aware that newspapers and other media outlets had to be very careful as to what they published, providing they didn't want to be sued. I was not aware of how precise and clear-cut the rules are concerning court reporting, and reporting in general and how very careful Journalists have to be.

After a brief outline of how courts are established i.e. a judge, 12 members of the jury, barristers representing each side etc. (this being, let's say, a hypothetical Crown Court) We became enlightened to the (many) different codes and laws concerning court proceedings, and Court reporting. One of the most basic, and yet most important fundamentals to all cases, is the 'Presumption of Innocence'. This can be recognised mostly by the fact that someone should never have to prove their innocence, only that the prosecuting party has to prove their guilt. In this respect, especially in those involving juries, it is critical that this is not breached, as it can result in prejudice (influencing a juries decision). This applies to journalists in that, if they report on a defendant as having committed the offence, rather than saying, they are accused of having committed the offence. They are implying guilt on said defendant, which could sway a jury's decision. If a reporter or newspaper is found to have done this, they are in danger of 'Contempt of Court' for which there is no defense. An individual found to have contempt of court could be faced with up to a £40,000 fine, or a 6 month sentence.

Providing however, that any reporting is unbiased, fair, and above-all, accurate.Journalists are granted Qualified Privilege meaning they are exempt from any Libel law action. This does not mean they can simply make it up as they go along (although that would be a hell of an easy job) for that would be Malice: The telling of a lie (whether you believe it to be true makes no difference, as that shows negligence on behalf of the reporter).

Despite whatever apparent limitations on court reporting however, Journalists - in the case of court reporting - are the eyes and ears of the public. Journalists are there to make sure that the law is carried out in full. We help to confirm one of the basic legal principles, 'Justice must be seen to be done'.
Is it just me who thinks that sounds a touch Machiavellian?