By Gabriel Princewill-
The British media, and probably the world media too, are on a provisional trial by the eye of media.com in relation to publication of convicts roads.
As we look into ways of improving and supporting the media, a range of issues have been raised by team members or their associates for close consideration. One of those is in examining the long practise of the press in routinely publishing the roads of convicted criminals following a trial.
Publication of roads in newspapers, is standard proceedure and has been practised for decades without issue. Now, some of our deep thinkers believe there may be an underlying flaw in this practise, but getting rid of it may be a long shot.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
It has come up among some of those unspoken issues that never get touched or addressed. It is a tricky but interesting one because the practise is cutomary among most media publications. The eye of media.com has never imposed an internal rule against publishing roads of convicts, but has decided to hold back on this practise whilst the assessment goes on.
EXPOSE
Revealing the roads where people live could expose family members to attack once indenitified by rival groups. The precise door number is never disclosed, but in some cases, the road may be the only indication dangerous individuals may need.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
NO PRIVACY
The problem is that defendants are always obliged to give their full name and address in court as part of court proceedure.Nial Duffy of the Ipso regulatory body points out to the eye of media.com in this discussion that ”anything mentioned in court is in the public arena, unless the judge places restrictions on it”.
There is no expectation of privacy, and as such it can be reported”. This is true, but also raises the question as to whether the courts can as a general rule instruct against publication of private address roads.
Alternatively, defendants can insist on withholding details of their address in court if they have reason to fear a strong possibility of reprisals for some action they taken or not taken.
Discussing the issue, Duffy told the eye of media.com ”Judges particularly mention the name and addresses of lawyers to guard against mistaken identification”. It prevents people with the same name and surname being ”tarred” with the same brush.
Duffy indicates the useful inclusion of lawyers in this evaluation , and considerations from lawyers and judges will comprise our assessment. It give a fuller picture of the underpinning rationale for the practise.
PICTURE
Objectors to this longstanding practise legitimately point out that the picture of a convicted defendant suffices to prevent a mistaken identity. The slight downside to this easily surfaces in cases involving a long list of names. In such cases, space does not always permit for the picture of each convict to published.
The name, age and road clarifies the identity of the individual concerned, but the road remains a problematic issue. Eliminating the road from the list of details permissible for disclosure could have ramifications for the standard courts process.
The eye of media.com will team up with a handful of lawyers in consultation with some judges and press regulator Ipso to exhaust the issue in the coming weeks and months.
Arguments and counterarguments will be heard and appraised until a dominant position against which no coherent argument can be made stands out.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar