Sufficient Prominence
Over the last two weeks a barrister has been tried on charges of GBH and wounding. It arose out of a dispute at a "wedding" (which proceeded as such although it was actually a renewal of vows after 10 years). The barrister was acting as best man. It was alleged that, in response to a comment about where on his body he had tattoos, that he had "flashed" the top table and consequently had a dispute with another guest. Further that later on in the dispute he attacked that other guest and, from blows with his fists, caused injuries which were serious enough to be compared with either those sustained in a serious car crash or as a result of being hit with a baseball bat. The defence case was, in essence, that no actual flashing had taken place, that the barrister had not struck the first blow and was defending himself. The jury acquitted him of both charges.
Given the nature of the injuries, and the "flashing" allegation, the prosecution opening and certain of their witnesses received very wide press coverage. The defence case received rather less coverage, as with the acquittal. Both as regards the number of newspapers commenting and also the amount of text devoted to the story. I think it a fairly safe bet that had the verdict been guilty this would have been one of the lead stories.
Obviously newspapers are there to report newsworthy stories. It is thus perhaps inevitable to some extent that a dramatic allegation is a more newsworthy story than an acquittal, and a conviction even more newsworthy. Nonetheless stories about ongoing proceedings, whilst the proper subject of report by the press, still have a huge impact. The barrister was named. There were pictures of him, clutching a ring binder with the name of his chambers clearly written upon it. His city of practice was specified. His hobby as a black belt jujitsu instructor detailed. Most people in that sort of position will plainly disagree with the old adage that all publicity is good publicity.
The difficulty is that any attempt to impose a legal solution would lead to the cure being worse than the disease. It is practically impossible and hugely undesirable to try and have some sort of formula that specifies how much coverage would be given and how to specify that it was balanced and fair. Policing it would be a nightmare. There are huge benefits in a free press. Regulation could easily amount to censorship. It is thus always going to have to be a question of judgment as to how to deal fairly with reporting in such circumstances.
Just because the press essentially has a free hand, that should not stop it constantly considering how to deal fairly with such matters. For example, the acquittal is newsworthy because the consequence to the barrister of conviction would have been so severe. Whilst the opening of the trial and any conviction might have a racier and punchier impact, fairness (but not law or regulation) should guide the press into giving sufficient prominence to both the defence case and any subsequent acquittal
.