30 May 2002 – In its response to the Lord Chancellor’s consultation paper on payments to witnesses by the media, The PressWise Trust condemns such payments but urges the government to make it an issue of contempt rather than create a new criminal offence aimed solely at journalists. The following is a summary of the response.
1.01 The media ethics charity PressWise believes that if information is in the public interest it should not have a price tag. Payment to witnesses in criminal cases is a form of cheque-book journalism which itself is an abnegation of press freedom – the purchase of exclusives is a marketing device designed to gain a competitive advantage over rivals. The practice runs counter to the NUJ Code of Conduct, and puts pressure on freelances and agencies to produce the stories that major print and broadcast publishers believe will ‘sell’.
1.02 PressWise advises people not to ‘sell their stories’, or to seek professional advice before signing contracts which are unfair and unequal, with all the power in the hands of the editors. Those who sell ‘exclusives’ are likely to be browbeaten into giving information and may find their reputations damaged by ‘spoiling copy’ published by rival papers.
1.03 Offering inducements to witnesses in criminal cases puts at risk the course of justice, and is tantamount to bribery. Protecting public confidence that citizens arraigned under the criminal justice system will obtain a fair trial is a paramount consideration.
1.04 While there may be instances where the offer or payment of money has brought to light evidence of crimes or which has led to successful criminal conviction, it is also the case that genuine ‘whistle blowers’ do not supply information for financial gain. It cheapens the justice system if evidence is regarded as a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder.
1.05 Relying upon a system of self-regulation funded entirely by and administered in the interests of the newspaper industry itself is an insufficient safeguard that commercial inducements to witnesses or potential witnesses in criminal trials will not put the principle of a fair trial at risk. Self-regulation has not prevented payments to witnesses, despite express rejection of the practice in what is now Clause 16 of the industry’s Code of Practice.
1.06 PressWise acknowledges that there are strong arguments for making payments to witnesses a criminal offence like any other interference with a trial. However, it is concerned about the precedent caused by creating a specific criminal offence directed solely at the press. We regard it as an unhealthy development to set journalists apart from the public they serve. Like other citizens they should be subject simply to the law of the land.
1.07 The preferred option outlined by PressWise in our response an earlier consultation paper issued by the Lord Chancellor’s Department in 1996, was that the terms of the Contempt of Court 1981 could be broadened to outlaw the offering of inducements to witnesses and other connected with a case. Amendments might include allowing individuals to institute contempt proceedings if they felt that the outcome of a trial might have been influenced by media pressures.
1.08 PressWise recognised at the time a perceived reluctance to use Contempt of Court as a remedy since, as a political appointee, the Attorney General is subject to the same pressures from the print and broadcast media as the Government and political parties.
1.09 Under all circumstances in which payments are made to informants, witnesses, criminals or their associates the sums involved should be a matter of public record and should be subject to the appropriate level of taxation.
1.10 If the offence is created it should apply equally to UK and foreign media, and the offence should be one of strict liability applying to those who seek payment for information as well as those who offer payments.
1.11 The general practice of collecting background information in advance of a trial should not be an offence. It is a perfectly legitimate and important journalistic practice. Only when offers of financial inducements are made would the practice be covered.
1.12 Whether the decision is to extend the contempt laws or to create a new crime, the period covered by the offence should extend from the point at which a hearing is ‘imminent or pending’ to the conclusion of the time limit for lodging an appeal.
1.13 In the event that payments to witnesses is made a crime, editors should always be able to rely upon a ‘public interest’ defence’ if they believe that there was no other option than to pay for such information, but their decision to offer payments should always be circumscribed by the knowledge that it may court prosecution.
For the full text of the PressWise response to the Lord Chancellor click here.
(Bulletin No 65)