The law bans the media from publishing or broadcasting, including on the Internet, any comments or information that might seriously prejudice active legal proceedings, in particular criminal proceedings heard before juries. The worry is that a juror might hear or see something outside of the courtroom that might improperly sway him/her when he/she is deciding whether the accused person is innocent or guilty.
In short, once legal proceedings become “active”, we are not allowed to broadcast anything which would create “a substantial risk of serious prejudice” to the proceedings. To do otherwise is a criminal offence. Criminal proceedings become “active” as soon as someone is arrested or charged and remain so until such time as the accused has been acquitted or convicted. Civil proceedings e.g. libel proceedings etc. become active when the hearing date is arranged.
A classic example of contempt in criminal law is the publication or broadcast, once proceedings are active, of the fact that a person charged with a criminal offence has a previous criminal record. This is not something which generally people on the jury would know before deciding whether the person charged is guilty or not guilty. Broadcasting this information would create a substantial risk that people who may subsequently be on the jury could be swayed in their consideration of the facts and in making their verdict. However, even statements as seemingly inconsequential as “I reckon he did it” could be problematic.
Contempt of court is a criminal offence and carries serious penalties – an unlimited fine and/or up to two years imprisonment of the relevant personnel responsible for the offending publication or broadcast. The law is interpreted even more strictly in Scotland.
For these reasons any films about active legal proceedings or that make any reference to active legal proceedings should be avoided as they are very problematic. If you are in any doubt whether proceedings are active in relation to comments that are made in your film, err on the side of caution and remove the comments.
Once a person has been convicted, proceedings cease to be active and there is much more scope for commenting on the proceedings or making comments about the convicted person. That is why, as soon as a particular defendant is convicted, newspapers often print page after page of very prejudicial material that they simply could not have printed during the course of the trial.
Finally, it is worth noting that UK contempt laws only apply to legal proceedings that are taking place in the UK. However, because FourDocs is an internet-based channel, which can be accessed virtually anywhere in the world, there is the possibility that content on the site could prejudice proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. For example, a film might contain comments about an accused person who is facing charges in some foreign jurisdiction e.g. Australia. Australia has similar contempt laws to the UK’s. Such comments could be prejudicial and might be accessed and read by people in Australia who might become jurors on that case. For this reason, you should exclude comments about active legal proceedings no matter where the proceedings are taking place.
Here are some further activities that would be or could be in contempt:
Someone you know has been arrested and charged for a crime they claim they did not commit and there is a forthcoming trial. You believe they are innocent and you decide to make a film to help publicise the person’s innocence. To broadcast such a film before proceedings were concluded would almost definitely amount to a contempt and we would not be able to accept your film, certainly not until he/she had either been acquitted or convicted.
You are making a film totally unrelated to legal proceedings e.g. about roller-blading in your local park, but one of your contributors unexpectedly starts talking about a crime that was committed there e.g. an assault by a gang on a local teenager. The alleged attackers have been caught and the case is going to the Crown Court. Your contributor makes comments about the case detailing some of the things that are alleged to have happened. Again, these comments are likely to be problematic as long as the case remains active and so should not be included in your film.
Again, you are making a film on a subject totally unrelated to legal proceedings. One of your contributors starts talking about a story in the news e.g. about the murder of a well known television personality. A man has been arrested and there’s a trial looming. Any comments about the accused man and especially which touch upon his guilt or innocence are likely to be problematic and should be removed from the film.
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
