APPENDIX 4: CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE
EDITOR'S CODE OF PRACTICE COMMITTTEE
Letter from the Chairman to Sir Christopher
Meyer
Thank you for sending me a copy of your report on
Relations between the executive, the judiciary and Parliament.
I have had a look at the report, and also transcripts
of some of the oral evidence. You actually covered some matters
that have been the subject of private discussions between the
PCC, the press and the judiciary. I think that the current Code
of Practice, with its rules on accuracy and opportunity to reply,
should already provide a way in for those wishing to hold to account
the sort of newspaper reporting you are concerned about.
That said, I will of course feed your concerns in
to the Editors' Code of Practice committee, which writes and reviews
the Code.
25 September 2007
Letter from Mr Ian Beales, Secretary to the
Editor's Code Committee
Following your correspondence with Sir Christopher
Meyer, the Editors' Code of Practice Committee has now considered
carefully your suggestion for a change to the Code, to protect
the judiciary from unfair criticism in the press.
As you may be aware, the PCC has standing guidance
on avoiding harassment of the judiciary. However, 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.
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. This being so,
the Editors' Code Committee believes no amendment to the present
rules is necessary.
I hope this answers your points. Please let me know
if I can help further in any way.
8 November 2007
Letter from the Chairman to Mr Ian Beales
Thank you for your letter of 8 November 2007 to my
predecessor, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, about the Constitution
Committee's recent recommendations on press coverage of judges
and specifically the Editors' Code of Practice.
The Committee has asked me to convey our dissatisfaction
at your response. You refer to the PCC's standing guidance on
avoiding harassment of the judiciary and the Code's "comprehensive
rules on accuracy and opportunity to reply". The Committee
wishes to make two points. Firstly, it is clear that the existing
provisions are not working. If they were, newspapers would not
print wholly inappropriate attacks on the judiciary such as the
following from the Daily Express:
Using the European Convention on Human Rights as
cover, Mr Justice Sullivan made a ruling which many will
regard as tantamount to a judicial coup against Parliament …
Britain's out-of-touch judges are increasingly using the Human
Rights Act as a means of asserting their will over our elected
representatives.[36]
Secondly, the opportunity to reply is not a satisfactory
remedy in the case of judges because they cannot discuss their
judgments or sentencing decisions outside the courtroom. As the
Lord Chief Justice has explained, "it ought to be clear from
the judgments in question the process of reasons that has led
the judge or judges to reach their conclusions … and it would
not be appropriate for those who have given the judgment or, indeed,
for me to go beyond that".[37]
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.
The question of whether judges are perceived as "out of touch"
is not relevant here.
In light of the above, we urge the Editors' Code
Committee to reconsider our recommendation.
30 January 2008
Letter from Mr Ian Beales
Thank you for your letter, which will go before the
Code Committee at its next meeting, in April. In advance of that,
however, I wonder if I might ask you to clarify the Select Committee's
thinking on the following points:
- For the avoidance of doubt, would it be correct
to assume your Committee is not suggesting that the Code
ban all press criticism of judges?
- If so, how would the Code differentiate between
'acceptable' criticism and that which would not be permitted?
Who, in your view, should decide?
- How would this sit with normal concepts of freedom
of expression?
- If judges are inhibited from direct reply to
media comment, could not the Judicial Communications Office have
a role in this?
- Have members of the judiciary sought this specific
protection, as it is not within the recent experience of editors,
in their occasional contacts with senior judges, that this has
been a significant issue?
I'd very much appreciate your thoughts. I am sure
they would greatly assist the Code Committee in its deliberations.
14 March 2008
Letter from Mr Ian Beales
The Editors' Code Committee met last week, but felt
it would be better to defer further discussion until your Committee
had had the opportunity to respond to the points made in my letter
of March 14.
The Code Committee is not now likely to meet again
until the autumn, but I will of course put the matter on the agenda,
once I hear from you.
27 April 2008
36 Leader, 11 May 2006. Back
37
Constitution Committee, 6th Report (2006-07): Relations between
the executive, the judiciary and Parliament, 26 July 2007,
paragraph 150. Back
| 
