The lecture this week had a slightly different focus as we looked towards the exam in a couple of weeks time and so we discussed a few examples on the subjects we had covered so far.
Our first example was the Gilligan case which we discussed with the main objective of learning not to fake evidence. The case surrounded the Iraq War and the 'Dodgy Dossier' which eventually led to the suicide of Dr David Kelly. Before Britain went to war with Iraq, Tony Blair said that we had a dossier containing evidence that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan reported on whether the report had been exaggerated and some pieces faked and it turned out the majority of the information had come from the Internet. The dossier was shown to Dr David Kelly in his capacity as an employee of the Defence Intelligence Staff and at the time a quote appeared in The Observer which was later attributed to Kelly saying, "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons". Andrew Gilligan then met with Kelly and had a two way interview with him which led Gilligan to broadcast his suspicions about the dossier on the Today programme. The combination of this and a later article in The Mail on Sunday, which named Alastair Campbell as the person responsible for the faking of the evidence, subsequently led to the Government pressing the BBC to reveal its source. Of course, as any journalist should know you can never reveal your source as part of the Journalists Code of Conduct. The process of elimination began to suggest Kelly was his source and so he was questioned extensively by his employers who could not be sure he was Gilligan's only source. Kelly was unstable however and the Hutton enquiry led to his suicide which then became the news story. The focus then changed to Gilligan with Greg Dyke having to defend him as BBC controller and defend the Today programme. Both were sacked over the affair and the Hutton enquiry led to the tightening of guidelines in the BBC. The whole problem could have been solved for Gilligan if he had kept good shorthand notes but without them, his conversation with Kelly may as well have been faked.
On the topic of confidentiality and privacy, Section 8 of the Human Rights Act will always trample Section 10 (Freedom of Expression). In the case of Naomi Campbell, where pictures of her emerging from a rehab centre were published, she sued under Section 8 and won as the paper could not justify the use of the pictures. They tried to say it was in the public interest as she is a 'role model' but judges are tired of this excuse. Don't do it. The big confidentiality case that is always worth a mention is the Princess Caroline of Monaco case. It established degrees of privacy that in simple terms meant she could only be photographed whilst performing a clear public duty. Presenting the European Cup to the winners, OK to photograph her, outside a cafe is wrong but only a small fine in comparison to taking a picture of her inside the cafe when she had gone all the way to the back to avoid attention. Similarly, a man sued after being seen at a Gay pride demonstration, apparently this was not public enough as he successfully sued saying it interfered with his personal life. The Royals in this country cannot monetise their Section 8 rights however because everything they do is public interest, they can't sue because that would be a bigger story than anything people can photograph them doing. Finally on confidentiality and privacy, Catherine Zeta-Jones and her marriage to Michael Douglas had exclusive photo rights to Hello magazine but somehow, OK! magazine sneaked in, got a photo of her scoffing some cake and did a 'ha ha ha' piece at Hello. This became a bigger case in which Zeta-Jones received a large payout but the main point is that some celebrities are now using their Section 8 rights to make money.
On the subject of Libel and Defamation there are a few more cases that we talked about in this lecture that we had not discussed previously. The first of these was a case in which it was said that Britney Spears had appeared in pornographic videos, she sued the people who made the claim but failed in a 10 million dollar libel case. The accusations were definitely defamatory but the defence of justification could not be used because she had not actually appeared in an adult movie per se. The comment defence could be used however as you can reasonably argue that her music videos do attempt to arouse someone, "we regard that as pornography" and so she failed in her libel case. Tommy Sheridan was a socialist MP in the Scottish Parliament who the News of the World reported had been visiting brothels. This was a serious case of defamation as he was married and a hypocrite but because it involved prostitutes the case was very difficult to prove with the only defence possible being justification. The precedent for this was the Jeffery Archer case where the judge did not believe the testimony of a prostitute and influenced the jury. In case of Sheridan however the News of the World did not give up and the case against Sheridan continues. Another libel case involved the naming of a Saudi banker as the main financier for the Taliban. Obviously they sued and the only defence could be justification but there was practically no evidence that would stand up in court. The only possible defence here was the Reynold's defence which I believe I outlined briefly in a previous post. Finally the celebrity hypnotist Paul McKenna was exposed as a charlatan by some news outlets but who won his libel claim against the Mirror group when they suggested his PhD was not real. It was one of the most expensive libel cases to date.
Apologies for the slightly erratic nature of this blog post but it was necessary to get these examples down not just for the blog but for my benefit as we draw near to the exam.
Until next time. Stay Classy Internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment