Steven Raeburn exposes the uneasy consequences of the baser elements of journalism
In November 2006, Luke Mitchell—sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of teenager Jodi Jones—won the right to have his appeal heard outside Edinburgh (see HMA v Luke Muir Mitchell [2006] HCJAC 84). The decision passed largely without remark, but this move quietly signifies a nadir in the relationship between the criminal courts and the media. The fact that it is believed necessary to move the location of the appeal at all, is due to the adverse publicity which accompanied the original trial. In anticipation of feverish coverage generating a storm of indignant interest, Mitchell’s defence team, led by Donald Findlay QC, aim to pre-emptively avoid negative press in the city. Such is the confidence Scottish legal practitioners have in their own media.
Prejudice
In considering the attitude of the newspapers in general, Findlay believes the level of coverage can be dangerously prejudicial, particularly before the point of any arrest. “That is the worrying area. How you strike a balance between
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
