On journalists and judges

the Human Rights maze?

What is the point of justice if it remains behind closed doors? An obvious question, you might think. After all, what is the alternative to openness? Kangaroo courts, show trials and Josef K dying “like a dog”?

For journalists, the idea that courts are transparent is likely to raise a hollow laugh at best. Most journalists – especially in the UK – have been brought up to see the court doors as a barrier to be beaten down in search of a good story. At the same time, judges and lawyers know very well that justice can only be served in neutral, disinterested, circumstances, and that an unruly press can constitute one of the greatest threats to the purity of their deliberations and decisions. As usual, the truth lies somewhere between.

A few years ago, I was struck by comments from leading UK human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robinson, describing the system in the UK, Europe and the USA as three separate beasts, each with a different roar. For me, the most threatening of them seemed the system that prevails in most of Europe, with draconian criminal law levied against journalists: a remainder of the Napoleonic Code that pilloried anyone taking a lob at a public figure. It’s the sort of law that has landed many journalists – and increasingly bloggers – in prison because they’ve taken a stab at some local dignitary or other.

Compared to this, British libel law seemed relatively tame to me, mostly because we Brits are by nature combative in public life, and we see anyone taking office as fair game for comment.

I’d never thought of English law as being one of the strictest on court reporting in the world. It took veteran journalist William Horsley, one-time Berlin correspondent for the BBC and now the UK chair of the Association of European Journalists, to remind me. Speaking to a lawyers’ gathering recently, he made the case for more open dealings between the judiciary and the media, using the UK system as a litmus paper. This is a system that still employs court artists because cameras are not allowed in the courtroom; where legal correspondents have to work their contacts book hard to be a step ahead of the game; where court officers are reluctant to give precious background to upcoming cases. The result: in the red corner - the most combative media in the world, smacking its chops as soon as it spots a juicy court case; and in the blue corner – celebrity defendants invoking “super injunctions” to get themselves a legally sanctioned media black-out.

Things have changed since I covered court as a UK hack reporter. In 1998, the Human Rights Act came into force. For some, it was long overdue, a way to ensure a Bill of Rights for the UK by bringing the European Convention of Human Rights into the common law system. For others, it’s privacy law by the back door”, a move that has made the UK the libel capital of the world.

And then there is the Supreme Court, beginning life in 2009 to replace the Law Lords. Their operation is increasingly media savvy, with court officials open to give background briefings, outreach towards the public via a user-friendly website and the use of video.

Society can only benefit from good relations between media and judges. Mutual distrust is the key to super injunctions and sensationalism; openness and confidence is the way to good working relations and accurately reported stories. For the journalists, this means a renewed commitment to accuracy, fairness and integrity in their dealings with courts; for the court officials, it means dropping any self-righteous attitudes and recognising that accurate journalism is also their responsibility. It means taking a leap of faith with the journalists they work with, opening themselves up, and being assertive when they are wrongly quoted or inaccurate reported.

Open justice deserves open doors.

photo of the Court of Human Rights courtesy of the Council of Europe photo service.