View all newsletters
Sign up for our free email newsletters

Fighting for quality news media in the digital age.

  1. Archive content
July 31, 2003updated 17 May 2007 11:30am

Hoogstraten reporting

By Press Gazette

The reporting ban imposed by the Appeal Court at the end of the successful appeal by Nicholas van Hoogstraten against his conviction for manslaughter has again led to criticism that the courts are increasingly putting the cart before the horse.

The case lasted a day, with unrestricted reporting throughout. Finally, Lord Justice Rose gave judgment lasting roughly three-quarters of an hour giving reasons why the court considered the property millionaire’s conviction should be quashed and there should be a retrial.

Then, at the end of the hearing, the application to restrict reporting was made with the result that the court imposed a ban on any reporting of the reasons for its decision until after the retrial has taken place.

By that time though, the decision had been given and some reporters had already left court to file the result, possibly with some of the detail from the judgment, oblivious to the fact that the submissions over legal costs which followed immediately after the judgment were then followed by far more relevant media considerations.

Court reporters have argued for some time that judges and lawyers need to be brought up to speed on the workings of the modern media and the way it often handles running copy.

They claim that time and again cases are heard and reported throughout the hearing and it is not until the end that an application is made – sometimes successful and sometimes not – for a reporting ban to be imposed.

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

By then it can be far too late. The horse has already bolted and the running story has been published or broadcast or both.

In a case like van Hoogstraten’s, where the press benches were packed, journalists found it incomprehensible that the question of reporting restrictions was left until the last minute.

In contrast, in the same week, High Court family division president Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss dealt with the tragic, right-to-die-with-dignity case of Teresa Innes, who was left in a permanent vegetative state after being administered penicillin when she was allergic to it.

Lawyers and the judge considered the question of identification and publicity and made it clear from the outset that, though the case was being dealt with in open court, restrictions would be imposed.

By Roger Pearson

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