The Ministry Of Truth

I see Contestant Number One in Ipswich has walked. I do hope he can locate himself a good firm prepared to take on his case against the media on a no win, no fee basis…

I saw yesterday’s Daily Star front page while loitering at a railway station last evening: “SUSPECT NUMBER TWO IS A SECRET TRANNY!”, illustrated by a snap of the man who has been subsequently charged looking for all the world like he’d simply dressed up as Dr. Frank-N-Furter for a midnight Rocky Horror screening.

This morning there are a couple of trainee solicitors spending their last day at work before Christmas visiting the British Library Newspapers archive in Colindale frantically photocopying every prejudicial story to have appeared in the British press over the past week.

Never let it be said that the Ministry does not inform, educate and entertain. Therefore we are delighted to provide you with a little light holiday reading:

Contempt of court serves the primary function of protecting the integrity of court proceedings. The law relating to contempt of court is found in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and in the common law.

Contempt of Court Act 1981

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA) was enacted… to give greater protection to freedom of speech. The CCA introduces a strict liability rule. The strict liability rule indicates that conduct tending to interfere with the course of justice – particularly legal proceedings – may be treated as a contempt of court regardless of whether there was any intent to so interfere.

The strict liability rule applies only to publications. These are defined so as to include any speech, writing, broadcast or other communication in whatever form which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.

Two important limitations on the impact of the strict liability rule are:

• It applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
• It applies to a publication only if the proceedings are active.

The CCA sets out when proceedings become active. Different tests apply for criminal and civil cases. In criminal cases, proceedings become active for the purposes of the strict liability rule with:

• An arrest without warrant.
• The issue of a warrant.
• The service of a summons.
• The service of an indictment.
• Oral charge.

Criminal proceedings cease to be active:

• Upon acquittal or sentence.
• Upon any other verdict, finding or decision which puts an end to the proceedings.
• By discontinuance or by operation of law.

A publication must create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the course of justice for it to amount to contempt. In determining whether a publication has created a substantial risk of serious prejudice, the courts will consider all the circumstances surrounding the publication and the proceedings in question. It is clear that for a publication to be contempt a slight or trivial risk of serious prejudice is not enough nor is a substantial risk of slight prejudice.

In making an assessment of whether the publication does create a substantial risk of serious prejudice the court will consider:

• The likelihood of the publication coming to the attention of a potential juror.
• The likely impact of the publication on an ordinary reader at the time of publication.
• The residual impact of the publication on a notional juror at the time of trial.

In assessing the likelihood of a publication coming to the attention of a potential juror, the court will consider whether the publication is distributed in the area from which jurors are likely to be drawn and the number of copies circulated.

In assessing the likely impact of the publication on an ordinary reader, the court will consider the prominence of the article in the publication and the novelty of the content of the article in the context of likely readers.

The court will also take into account the length of time between publication and the likely date of trial, the focusing effect of listening over a prolonged period to evidence in a case, and the likely effect of the judge’s directions to a jury.

In 2002 the Sunday Mirror was found guilty of contempt in relation to its publication of an article during the 2001 trial of the Leeds United footballers Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate. The article, released while the jury were deliberating, strongly suggested that the assault with which the two men were charged had been racially motivated, despite the judge stressing in his summing-up that the prosecution were not alleging a racist motive. It was found by the court that the article created an atmosphere in which justice could not be done, and a re-trial had to be ordered. Despite there being no suggestion that the newspaper had intended to prejudice the trial, the High Court found it guilty of contempt under the strict liability rule.

It should be noted that even irreverent comment about defendants in a forthcoming criminal trial may constitute contempt of court. In 1996 the Court of Appeal found that the makers of the television programme Have I Got News For You were in contempt of court when jokes were made that the Maxwell brothers (who were to be tried for the Mirror Group pension fraud) were obviously guilty of fraudulent conduct, even though the programme was broadcast six months before the trial.

Common Law Contempt of Court

The CCA expressly provides that it does not restrict liability for contempt of court in respect of conduct intended to impede or prejudice the administration of justice. Common law contempt is therefore preserved. A publisher is liable in contempt for an intentionally prejudicial publication made when proceedings are pending or imminent. Proceedings can be pending or imminent even prior to the arrest of a suspect.

Publication of a confidential document in defiance of an injunction prohibiting its disclosure would also amount to common law contempt. This principle was extended in the Spycatcher litigation in which the Court of Appeal held that other publishers not directly subject to the injunction, acting on their own behalf, could be in contempt of court by publishing the same material where this would frustrate the court’s intention to keep the material secret.

More than half of the BBC’s Six O’clock News was last night given over to the public dissection of the life of a 37-year-old Tesco employee.  The coverage had been cut back by the time of the same channel’s Nine O’clock News but still filled more than a third of the programme.

The man in question – as if you didn’t know – has been arrested by police investigating the murder of five women in and around the Suffolk town of Ipswich.  He has, to date, been charged with (let alone convicted of) precisely nothing.

Supposedly serious journalists, BBC correspondents intoned that the arrested man “describes himself as ‘sad’, ‘lonely’ and says there is something about him that women don’t seem to like”.  Speaking unto the nation, these highly trained newsgathering machines confirmed that they had read the man’s MySpace site and the interview he gave to the Sunday Mirror and listened to a not-for-broadcast interview he gave last week to BBC Radio (which the BBC promptly broadcast), repeating the claims he made therein as established fact.

Gavin Hewitt drove his car from the arrested man’s house to the site where the last victim’s body was discovered and breathlessly exclaimed that, even without driving quickly, the journey had taken him only five minutes.  Fuck me – that’s conclusive: hang the vile deviant.

It was left to a single throwaway line at the denouement of the Nine O’clock News’ coverage of the story to confirm that the man is only one of six considered by Suffolk Constabulary to be significant suspects in this case (this information presumably gleamed by the BBC’s dazzling hacks by reading the first edition of this morning’s Times newspaper).

It was left to the BBC’s Deputy Director of News to appear on Newsnight to seek to defend the corporation’s unilateral decision – taken only after the man’s arrest – to broadcast that “background interview” and to devote so much coverage to the arrest.  He laughably claimed that the corporation’s actions were in “the public interest”.  Jeremy Paxman, at least, still seems to remember that brief section in journalism college that mentions the Contempt of Court Act prevents the broadcast or publication of information that might prejudice the administration of justice and commendably pointed out to his boss that there is a world of difference between “the public interest” and “what the public is interested in”.

This morning the Daily Mirror alleges in a massive front page splash that the arrested man “had a party at his house with all five victims – just weeks before the first girl went missing”.  Clearly this anonymous allegation (doubtless made in return for cash) establishes the man’s guilt beyond question and he should be burnt at the stake forthwith.  Jesus: to think that masthead used to stand for the very best in investigative journalism…

As I have been typing this post, it has emerged that Suffolk Constabulary has this morning arrested a second man in connection with this enquiry.  Perhaps this is the “American man known as ‘Uncle’” that so many media outlets have been trailing for the past two or three days.  Who knows?  Either way I look forward to learning his inside leg measurement and about his passion for trainspotting on this evening’s “news” (sic) as an expensively hired helicopter pointlessly circles above some anonymous dwellings on an Ipswich housing estate to provide “colour” for the piece.

In ordinary circumstances, one would hope that the Attorney General would charge with contempt a couple of news editors and lock the bastards up for a couple of weeks just to remind the Fourth Estate of its obligations not to prejudice criminal proceedings.  Of course, these are not ordinary circumstances: our Attorney General is “Lord” Peter Goldsmith.

On Lawrence Booth’s excellent Ashes blog, a fellow called MouthoftheMersey adds a nice summing up of the latest Ashes series for all those of us who just can’t face the acres of dismal post-mortem newsprint we’re all about to be hit with:

We all know Gilo for Monty was an error (best wishes Ashley and family), but what really grates is the number of opportunities England’s less than dynamic cricket has created only to see them squandered. This is not an Australian XI to compare with Waugh’s nor Taylor’s nor (possibly) Border’s. The series wasn’t there for the taking, but a tied series retaining the Ashes required England to play as we have a right to expect of international cricketers in the world’s number 2 side and no more. One more batter playing putting up Colly’s or KP’s numbers and one more bowler putting up Monty’s or Hoggy’s figures and it would be very close.

Re Gilchrist, he turned back the clock, but it was cheap runs compared to the glory days of turning matches in a blaze of controlled hitting. Impressive to watch, but Mr Cricket (can we call him Vampire – the bat that drains the blood?) and a hugely matured Clarke deserve the plaudits.

In fact, Australia have played beautifully in this game as a team – utterly focused and determined, utterly professional – but at times it resembled the end of a boxing match, where one contender is drained and on the ropes, knowing his night is over, but the crowd howl for blood, so his opponent unleashes a frenzied volley of blows, destined to destroy the vanquished fighter’s body and his spirit.

The next two tests will sadly just seem like the undercard, when the crowd have long since gone home. England let themselves down, sure. But these are the same guys who gave us so much unexpected joy last time around. I certainly won’t be laying into them. They gave their all, but they weren’t ready and they just weren’t capable of carrying the fight. The same lads will be around in 2009 when a quite different looking Aussie team will come back to England to defend the Ashes on our turf…all the lessons learned this time around need to be sunk into that project. In the meantime, lets get back to winning test series – starting with West Indies in the summer.

This may just be the best cartoon I’ve ever seen in my life.

My departmental administrator – or “secretary”, as they used to be known - has today been diagnosed with labyrinthitis.

Having seen the execrable 1986 Jim Henson movie Labyrinth, starring David Bowie, I am not surprised that the illness it induces is a medically-recognised phenomenon.

It occurred to me whilst watching the BBC Sports Personality of the Year show that 2 hours of watching highlights of minor sports and brief highlights of major ones (pictures courtesy of Sky Sports) is a long time to wait to find out the name of the big winner. And the results can sometimes be a little disappointing.

With that in mind, one wonders, does Zara Philips not have an agent or a minder who could have suggested that she have a brief speech prepared? A lot of the horsey fraternity at the SPotY show looked somewhat embarrassed by her vacuous ramblings, none more than Mike “Pentonville Prison Face” Tindall. If you’re winning a prize based on being a personality, it doesn’t really do to fall at the first hurdle.

Paul Sculthorpe, captain of Saint Helens (team of the year) perhaps understandably, given the enormity of what the Ryder Cup team achieved in a sporting context, didn’t have anything ready either (and the Saints lads looked like they were worried the cops were going to come bursting in at any moment) but at least he said what Zara Philips should have said: “this is particularly great for [enter minority sport here] and I hope you’ll all come and watch it a bit more” or words to that effect.

My own personal highlight was in realising that the person (outside Phil Taylor, who for the time being at least has an “athletic prowess” handicap as far as the suffrage is concerned) who should have won hands down (Joe Calzaghe) didn’t get to the podium. After a weekend where the ancient and stupid sport of boxing had enjoyed something of a resurgence on our TV screens (with commentators talking as if it had never been away) it was good to see that it is still so unpopular that a fish-faced gymnast and a royal on a pony get more votes than a bona fide boxing world champion. The only trouble is, it’s the monarchy that’s battling it out with boxing (and Miss World) to be crowned the most ancient and stupid thing of all. So there’s a bit to do yet.

The repeats of This Life finished last night. Jesus, that was an overrated series (with the exception of the last five minutes of the final episode). Only Cold Feet has since been more unjustifiably adored by meeja hors the length and breadth of, er, central London.

One thing really concerns me about the “reunion”: mobile phones. How the Hell will they eke out 90 minutes now everyone has a mobile?

Where would the wafer-thin original plots have been if Egg hadn’t had to keep running from the cafe to the phone box to whine at Milly? Could they really have strung out the tedium of “Miles and Anna” for 32 episodes if they’d been able to text each other and sort it out once and for all within five, 10 minutes tops? And the others (whoever they were); I’m sure all their problems would have been sorted out quickly and simply if only their pockets had been bulging with Nokias instead of pharmaceutically-induced erections.

I was a trainee solicitor in London in 1997. I know mobile phones existed.

Realism, my arse.

I respect Simon Jenkins a lot but his piece today seems a bit odd.  He appears only recently to have twigged on to something that the rest of the world has known for 50 years:

Why is there no British Baker/Hamilton report? Why must Britain’s war in Iraq, now its most protracted, costly and savage war in half a century, dance attendance on events in Washington? While “stay the course” has been abandoned in America, even by George Bush, the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, indicated yesterday that it remained British policy. Tony Blair is now in Washington, apparently seeking permission to make a change. This is humiliating.

References to poodles aside, the UK aligned itself with the US in the 1940s and ever since has reaped what was then sown.  With perhaps one exception – Suez (and didn’t that go well?) – the United Kingdom has not done anything of significance in terms of foreign policy that has not first been sanctioned (implicitly or explicitly, publicly or privately) by the then US President.  And with perhaps one exception – Vietnam (and didn’t that go well?) – the UK has only once given America the bird when called upon to join in arms.

Prime Minister Bliar’s closeness to President Bush is the norm, not the exception, because Britain has been in the States’ financial and military pocket for over half a century: Harold Macmillan didn’t get along with Jack Kennedy just because he wanted some tips from the latter about how to succeed with the laydeez.

In fairness to the Churchill-Attlee generation of politicians, such alignment was the only way Britain could hope to retain a place at the high table of world affairs and, in that respect if no other, the special relationship has served us very well.  (The crumbling of the Commonwealth meant that the only other option was to embrace European federalism alongside the same Germans whose bomb craters still dotted the land: hardly an idea that would have played well on the doorsteps in the 1950 General Election, I suspect.)

For me, the biggest humiliation in the whole of Bliar’s Middle Eastern antics is not our subservience to the USA but the current generation of politicians’ inability and/or refusal to learn from our historical mistakes.  Anyone with half-an-inch of brain and a passing knowledge of modern history knows that Britain has been mired in unwinnable conflicts in or around Palestine, Afghanistan and Mesopotamia for 150 years.  What arrogance makes Bliar think he can succeed where superpowers have consistently failed?  What folly makes him believe that modern day Iraqis and Afghans would take any more kindly to foreign invaders than their ancestors did?

The humiliation is that, for all the billions of pounds pumped into the UK’s education system since 1945, so many people have had to die to enable Mr. Bliar and his friends to learn the lesson a half-decent history textbook could have taught them in one evening.

The cunt’s only gone and printed his email address.

nicky.campbell@guardian.co.uk

Wade in, everyone.

To judge from his byline photograph, the Independent’s Johann Hari has not yet started shaving and his balls haven’t yet dropped. Like police officers, it’s hard to take entirely seriously columnists who get younger with every passing month. But I like to persevere with him when he’s ripping the piss out of the Tories.

George Osborne has indicated he would like to “move” on inheritance tax, which he says – with compassionate fawn-eyes – is “putting pressure on the middle class”. In reality, only the richest 6 per cent pay inheritance tax. These are people such as Osborne himself, who inherited millions from his family, and virtually everybody else David Cameron knows. His “move” would be simply an Old Tory massive tax cut for the wealthy.

He’s wrong about “Old Tory”: he means “Thatcherite”. It’s a small but important distinction and an error that can be forgiven in one so callowly youthful.

Cameron has been given a ludicrously soft ride, with every piece of spin taken at face value by an awe-swept media… When one of Cameron’s policy researchers declared his opposition to relative poverty and his love for Polly Toynbee, it made front-page news. Hardly anybody bothered to read Cameron’s big poverty speech that followed, which explicitly stated that Cameron would do nothing about incomes soaring into the stratosphere at the top. By definition, then, he will not do anything about relative poverty. He directly contradicted himself, but nobody called him on it.

I’m not sure about that. Let’s be honest: anybody declaring love for Polly Toynbee has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Where Cameron’s thinking is not filled with holes in this way, it amounts merely to a rebranding of old Tory nostrums. Small-state conservatives have always said cutting taxes will stimulate private charity. Without the Big Daddy of the state there to take charge, we will start to look out for each other, they argue, and poverty will fall. Cameron calls it “rolling forward the frontiers of society”.

Danny Kruger, one of Cameron’s advisers, calls this stress on fraternité (rather than égalité) “Cameron’s big idea”. But it is very old, and it has been tested a thousand times. In the years Margaret Thatcher was in power and sawing into state expenditure, the number of children living in poverty trebled, and – according to the definitive London School of Economics study – their chances of ever making themselves rich collapsed. Fraternité didn’t grow; it haemorrhaged away. Once again, the evidence shows that without explicit redistribution, the poorest become trapped.

Yet the few symbols of redistribution introduced by the present government are explicitly opposed by Cameron. He talks ominously of “moving beyond tax credits” and he is committed to abolishing SureStart, the programme that supports the poorest parents in Britain and helps make sure their kids keep up developmentally with their middle- class cousins. Cameron calls it “a model of state failure”; easy to say when you can afford two full-time nannies, I suppose.

And then the alarm clock went off and I woke up and it was a dream.

I may have made up that last sentence.