View all newsletters
Sign up for our free email newsletters

Fighting for quality news media in the digital age.

  1. Archive content
May 2, 2002updated 17 May 2007 11:30am

Proposed law on witness payments ‘unworkable’

By Press Gazette

The Press Complaints Commission has made a trenchant response to the Lord Chancellor’s Department’s proposal to make it a criminal offence for journalists to making payments to court witnesses.

In its published response this week, the commission claims there is no proven need for legislation and no evidence self-regulation has failed. It describes the proposals as "unworkable and ineffective".

Acting PCC chairman Professor Robert Pinker said the proposed law was a "futile gesture to deal with a largely illusory problem".

In preparing its response the commission looked at six cases where the issue of payments to witnesses has arisen: the trials of Ian Brady and Myra Hindley; Jeremy Thorpe; the Yorkshire Ripper; Rose West; Gary Glitter; and school teacher Amy Gehring.

It concluded that only in the Glitter trial had press "mischief" been proved.

But, the PCC paper points out, the proposed criminal offence would not have stopped this payment, because it was made when no trial was imminent or pending. Similarly, the offers of payment in the Gehring case would not have been caught as no actual payments were made before witnesses had given evidence. Proposed legislation is therefore being predicated on the evidence of just one case where the legislation itself would have failed to deal with the perceived problem, the PCC argues.

Content from our partners
MHP Group's 30 To Watch awards for young journalists open for entries
How PA Media is helping newspapers make the digital transition
Publishing on the open web is broken, how generative AI could help fix it

It says other problems with the proposed offence are:

lThere is no conclusive evidence that banning payments before or during a trial would make witnesses less likely to exaggerate stories.

lThe Code of Practice goes further than the proposed law by seeking to ensure payments are transparent, and also including "offers of payment".

lThe consultation paper makes a distinction between payments by the police and by the press, without explaining why police informants should not exaggerate information because they are being paid.

lThe absence of any public interest defence ignores the experience of the West trial, where witnesses were paid for information about the behaviour of the police and social services which was arguably in the public interest.

 

Jon Slattery

Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog

Select and enter your email address Weekly insight into the big strategic issues affecting the future of the news industry. Essential reading for media leaders every Thursday. Your morning brew of news about the world of news from Press Gazette and elsewhere in the media. Sent at around 10am UK time. Our weekly does of strategic insight about the future of news media aimed at US readers. A fortnightly update from the front-line of news and advertising. Aimed at marketers and those involved in the advertising industry.
  • Business owner/co-owner
  • CEO
  • COO
  • CFO
  • CTO
  • Chairperson
  • Non-Exec Director
  • Other C-Suite
  • Managing Director
  • President/Partner
  • Senior Executive/SVP or Corporate VP or equivalent
  • Director or equivalent
  • Group or Senior Manager
  • Head of Department/Function
  • Manager
  • Non-manager
  • Retired
  • Other
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
Thank you

Thanks for subscribing.

Websites in our network