The Media
29. In our original report, analysing the media's
impact on public perceptions of the judiciary, we came to the
following conclusions:
"We believe that the media, especially the
popular tabloid press, all too often indulge in distorted and
irresponsible coverage of the judiciary, treating judges as 'fair
game'. A responsible press should show greater restraint and desist
from blaming judges for their interpretation of legislation which
has been promulgated by politicians. If the media object to a
judgment or sentencing decision, we suggest they focus their efforts
on persuading the Government to rectify the legal and policy framework.
In order to ensure more responsible reporting, we recommend that
the Editors' Code of Practice, which is enforced by the Press
Complaints Commission, be regularly updated to reflect these principles"
(paragraph 146).
30. We sent a copy of our report to Sir Christopher
Meyer, Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). In his
reply, he suggested that "the current Code of Practice, with
its rules on accuracy and opportunity to reply, should already
provide a way for those wishing to hold to account the sort of
newspaper reporting you are concerned about".[31]
He did, however, pass on our concerns to the Editors' Code of
Practice Committee which reviews the Code.
31. The Secretary to the Code Committee, Ian
Beales, subsequently wrote to us. Echoing Sir Christopher,
he explained that the Code Committee "believes the points
raised in your Report are already covered by the Code's comprehensive
rules on accuracy and opportunity to reply, which provide an effective
remedy for erroneous reports of the sort you highlight".
He further cautioned that "any further moves to give specific
protection to the judiciary would risk interfering with freedom
to comment and—by appearing to make the judges a special
case—might increase public perceptions that they were out
of touch".[32] For
these reasons, the Code Committee would not amend the present
rules.
32. We are not in any way convinced by this response.
In a follow-up letter, we noted that judges were unable to use
the opportunity to reply because they could not discuss their
judgments or sentencing decisions outside the courtroom. We said
that "judges cannot engage with newspapers in the same way
as politicians, businessmen or other individuals. In that sense,
they are indeed a 'special case' and should be treated accordingly".[33]
We also pointed out that the existing provisions were clearly
not working because otherwise newspapers would not continue to
publish wholly inappropriate attacks on the judiciary.[34]
33. In response, Mr Beales asked for a number
of clarifications,[35]
which we provide here. We are not suggesting a restriction on
press criticism of judges, but we are calling for an end to the
inflammatory and misleading coverage that has all too often appeared
in recent years, particularly in some of the tabloid newspapers.
Such coverage is in our view likely simply to undermine confidence
in the judicial system and its independence. The consequences
of this would be extremely serious. It is for this reason that
we again emphasise the need for media coverage to be factually
accurate and temperately expressed. The Judicial Communications
Office can help to clarify any points of factual uncertainty but,
as the judiciary have acknowledged, it would be inappropriate
for the Office to attempt to justify individual judgments or sentencing
decisions. In our view, it would be helpful for journalists and
editors if the Editors' Code of Practice reflected the principles
set out above. We expect to see an outcome to the Editors'
Code of Practice Committee's deliberations which will respond
to our concerns.
1 
