UPDATE: Martin Stabe commented after I posted this, and reminded me that I had my legal issues mixed up (reporting on matters before the courts vs. libel). Indeed, I was thinking of an entirely different On the Media report than the one I originally linked (in September, not October). The end of this post has been rewritten to reflect that change. Thanks for the assistance, Martin.
UPDATE 2: Stabe sends along another post from Philip Young that asserts that libel might be an issue in this case. See here for details.
A few weeks ago, we pointed out the case of blogger Jackie Danicki, who was accosted on a London train platform. Martin Stabe notes that the rules of publishing in the U.K. change now: Court reporting rules apply to bloggers, too.
But on Friday, a man was arrested in connection with the incident. That means that proceedings are now active and it’s time for all the bloggers following the story to brush up on their British media law if they don’t want to risk prejudicing a potential future trial or even being held in contempt of court.
British laws differ from U.S. laws with respect to how reporting on matters before the courts is done. In September, NPR’s On The Media had a fascinating discussion of British rules about reporting matters before the courts. Here’s the transcript, and here’s the mp3.
on Dec 9th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Libel is an interesting point, but the real issue here, as far as British court reporting laws are concerned, is contempt of court.
Once a suspect is arrested, British law has very strict limitations about what can be said about the case, because of the risk of prejudicing a jury and therefore damaging the defendant’s right to a fair trial.