I thought the law…

Before it’s questioned by anyone, I deliberately changed the lyric to thought to be ironic and/or clever; it is not yet another typo, as seen repeatedly in my original post (sorry about that, I’ll get better – promise).

So, the law and such… Aside from the fact it’s very important anyway because, as human beings, we’re supposed to abide by it, the law is particularly important to us journalists (in training or otherwise) for three main reasons:

1)      It is a particularly good source for news stories. This is mostly because humans are, by nature, a very nosy species and are often unable (or at least unaware we’re able) to see court and other legal proceedings for ourselves. That and we like to have a good moan about how no-one respects anyone or the law nowadays (particularly us British – we do love a good moan, almost as much as we like tea).

2)      It contains particular constraints on what we journalists are allowed to do. Despite the fact journalists get no special mention within the law and anyone can pretend they are one (why you would, I’m not sure… but, still, you can if you like), it's vital to know what we write is lawful to avoid being in contempt of court, sued for libel or anything bad like that.

3)      As journalists, we should encourage freedom of expression and expose any ‘dodgy dealings’ that politicians or other important figures are trying to keep from the public. After all, we are, in essence, “the fourth estate” – there to stop the corruption of parliament and ensure fairness in the three branches of government (Legislature which is essentially parliament and makes the law, Executive (White Hall) which is the Departments of State and therefore deals with the everyday running of the country and Judiciary which is the system of courts in the country). Of course, the question then is who ‘polices’ us? The answer to which is we do. Because we’re just that cool.

So that’s why it’s important, where it comes from however is a completely different thing. It comes from a variety of different sources as Britain has no single constitutional document. It includes documents such as the Magna Carta and the Human Rights Act 1998 which is particularly essential to know for us journalists; the two most important Articles being article 8 (the right to privacy) and 10 (the right to free expression). The balance of these is often difficult to decide as they are equally as important so neither can take preference. If someone were to argue that an article invaded their privacy, they would raise the issue in a civil court as opposed to a criminal court. The difference between the two is that civil courts deal with disputes between people whilst criminal courts deal with offences against society as a whole.

Other important things to remember, branching off of this is that a murderer is only so if he/she is convicted of murder in court and that comment is allowed as long as it is your honest opinion. This is because, by law, journalists must ensure that we report crime accurately (e.g. call a thief a thief not a burglar because that makes them sound worse than they are… though they shouldn’t really have broken the law in the first place).

Right, what else do I need to talk about… Well, there’s the two different types of criminal court: Magistrates, which all crimes have to go to and Crown Court (or proper court, as I like to think of it). In Magistrates Court, people who have committed crimes carry little or no jail-time admit to their crime or try to defend themselves and tend to end up paying a fine – this is not interesting unless they’re a celebrity. This is also where people who committed proper, hard-core crimes go to essentially “check-in” to the Crown Court and find out if they have to remain in custody or are allowed to leave on bail. Crown Court, however, is where all the juicy stories come from such as murder and arson and that kind of a jazz. Unlike Magistrates Court, Crown Court has a jury, gavels, big curly wigs and all the things typically seen on television (hence why I like to think of it as proper court).

I should also talk about standards of proof. In civil court, a decision is made based on “the balance of probability” – if it’s more likely than not to be true. This also applies to what journalists write (so just because you read something in a newspaper, it doesn’t necessarily make it 100% accurate). Criminal Court, however, uses the “beyond reasonable doubt” statement as a base for convictions, which, in practice, means that the police need at least one of the following:

1.       A confession

2.       Forensic evidence

3.       One or more eyewitnesses

Often, if these are not available, a case will not be taken to court, despite the police being sure that they have the correct criminal. This is because of the “double jeopardy” rule which stops people being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. This way, if new evidence comes to light later that will get a conviction, the criminal can be prosecuted where as, if he/she has already been tried for the crime and found guilty, he/she would be unable to be tried for the same crime. The double jeopardy law is in place to stop people from being randomly accused of crimes they probably didn’t commit.

Right, I think that’s everything I’m supposed to have learnt… It’s certainly everything I understand and remember. Until next time, try not to break the law, okay? (Or, if you do, tell me so I can write a really good article on it).