header-logo header-logo

10 August 2012 / Iain Goldrein KC
Issue: 7526 / Categories: Opinion , Media
printer mail-detail

Read all about it

How can a balance be struck between protecting investigative journalism & safeguarding the public, asks Iain Goldrein QC

There is an obvious tension between protecting the integrity of genuine investigative journalism and safeguarding the public against criminality. Criminal offences most likely to be committed in cases affecting the media are set out in the appendix of the DPP’s Interim Guidelines. What is to happen when a journalist is arrested under suspicion of committing any such crimes? Is the journalist to be charged? Can the journalist fend off being charged, by arguing “public interest”? If yes—how, and when?

In criminal law, there is no overriding “public interest” defence. For the journalist looking for the enactment of an overriding defence of “public interest”, the advice has to be: don’t hold your breath. The House of Lords Select Committee on the future of investigative journalism (report, 16 February 2012) does not recommend there be enacted such a defence. The difficulty challenging a journalist goes further: there is no definition in law of what constitutes the “public

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll