Protect the dignity of the dead in courts reporting

ciarancummins7 · 10-02-2015 4:24pm #1

Hi,

I wanted to find out what others peoples opinion was on the reporting on court cases where the main focus is on someone who is dying or deceased. I am appalled by two recent cases and the detail of the reporting to the public. The person in question and their families must be further distraught by the lack of dignity given to their loved ones. The most recent case about Elaine O’Hara is just daily exposure of her private life, to have a headline. The poor woman was murdered, and now news outlets are detailing all her private life, for what reason? These details might be required for a Jury to hear to decide on a case, but why should someone be denigrated in public, when they have done nothing wrong.

What first got me physically upset about court reporting was the case of the pregnant mother, who was declared clinically dead just before Christmas last year, and it was detailed in court about what her condition was. Now I am sure the details are required for court, but why do the public need to know about the state of the poor womans condition? Nobody outside of the courtroom needs to know that she had fungus growing on her brain. That is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

I would be interested to hear other peoples opinion on this, and has anyone challenged this in the past?

coylemj · 10-02-2015 6:30pm

ciarancummins7 wrote: »

The most recent case about Elaine O’Hara is just daily exposure of her private life, to have a headline. The poor woman was murdered, and now news outlets are detailing all her private life, for what reason? These details might be required for a Jury to hear to decide on a case, but why should someone be denigrated in public, when they have done nothing wrong.

Because as anyone involved with the press will tell you, sex sells papers and that case has it in spades.

ciarancummins7 wrote: »

What first got me physically upset about court reporting was the case of the pregnant mother, who was declared clinically dead just before Christmas last year, and it was detailed in court about what her condition was. Now I am sure the details are required for court, but why do the public need to know about the state of the poor womans condition? Nobody outside of the courtroom needs to know that she had fungus growing on her brain. That is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

'Nobody outside the courtroom' and anyone reading your post. Clearly you have a monopoly on what is and is not beyond the pale when it comes to publishing distasteful facts. The papers will no doubt claim that they published those facts because it helped to highlight the absurdity of the legal situation here when it comes to abortion. You simply quote it because you feel like it.

ciarancummins7 wrote: »

Hi,

I would be interested to hear other peoples opinion on this, and has anyone challenged this in the past?

It can't be challenged, a 'fair and accurate' report of proceedings in a court case is protect by absolute privilege under S. 17.2(i) of the Defamation Act 2009. Juicy divorce and murder cases have been staples of the press for hundreds of years. The fact that the dead can't sue also helps.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/sec0017.html#sec17

IRE60 · 11-02-2015 2:38pm

"news outlets are detailing all her private life, for what reason"

News outlets are reporting whats being said in court. The court ins not in camera and there is a public gallery, should you wish to hear the 'ffact's first hand.

In the first instance, her sexual proclivities is is being argued have a bearing on the case in hand. In order to establish all the facts of the case you have to look at all the facets to all the characters.

Personally, in this case I do feel somewhat for the family of the deceased. It has to be harrowing to sit through the evidence and learning more about your daughter/sister than you wished. But it's still part of the trial and evidence and can be reported.

In terms of the second case you have to understand that it (amongst other cases) set in chain the drafting of proposed new legislation. The condition of the mother was central to the case. The condition of the mother was, therefore, central to the story.

As coylemj says it's about "publishing distasteful facts" which is a very moot point. One person may draw a line at distaste where others would draw it much further into the facts.

If your sensitivities border on the mild, then I believe a measure of self-censorship is in order given that you are now aware that many media organisations are not the shrinking violets you'd like them to be in reporting these cases.

coylemj · 11-02-2015 5:18pm

IRE60 wrote: »

In terms of the second case you have to understand that it (amongst other cases) set in chain the drafting of proposed new legislation. The condition of the mother was central to the case. The condition of the mother was, therefore, central to the story.

It did not - it was the High Court which decided that the doctors could switch off the life-support systems. Our brave legislators got off the hook and are determined not to touch this issue until after the next election even though it's well acknowledged that if that woman's pregnancy had been in the third trimester, it would have presented the courts and the doctors with a nightmare scenario which would have shamed this country in the eyes of the world - they would have had to keep her alive until the baby was born under the terms of the 1983 amendment.

Bear in mind that for Clare Daly's bill (which concerned fatal foetal abnormality - not an issue in the case above), FF allowed a free vote (3 voted for it) while SF officially abstained and didn't even bother to show up for the vote. Despite being a party of the radical left, when it comes to abortion some of the SF TDs are as conservative as any rural FF or FG TD. Abortion is considered a 'hot potato' in Irish politics, most TDs don't want to touch it.

The_Captain · 11-02-2015 5:47pm

Assuming Graham Dwyer isn't convicted, is he entitled to sue the hell out of every paper/news outlet in the country for essentially destroying his reputation?

coylemj · 11-02-2015 7:57pm

The_Captain wrote: »

Assuming Graham Dwyer isn't convicted, is he entitled to sue the hell out of every paper/news outlet in the country for essentially destroying his reputation?

No, you'll find that the newspapers are providing their readers with a 'fair and accurate' report of each day's proceedings in court so as per the last part of my first post (#2) above, they are protected by absolute privilege and cannot be sued.

Court reporters are trained to stay within the bounds of reporting as fact what was said in court, first to avoid being held in contempt (should they stray into commentary unacceptable to the judge) and secondly, to maintain the cover of absolute privilege from an action for defamation.

mrsdewinter · 12-02-2015 12:12am

Most western democracies operate a system where the justice system is transparent - that's a tradition upheld in Ireland where anybody can attend their local court and see at first hand (with a few notable exceptions - in sex crime cases, say, where victims' identities are protected) how justice is being meted out. I'd argue that the media has an obligation to relay to the public at large what happens in the courts.

Loafing Oaf · 12-02-2015 12:14pm

The issue that jumped out from the media coverage of this case for me was the absence of protection for witnesses who have done stuff that isn't illegal but that nobody would wish to see all over the papers. Who knows what impact this could have on their relationships with spouses, parents etc.? Is there no way the identity of such individuals could be concealed without compromising the transparency of the court system?

IRE60 · 13-02-2015 11:33am

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

The issue that jumped out from the media coverage of this case for me was the absence of protection for witnesses who have done stuff that isn't illegal but that nobody would wish to see all over the papers. Who knows what impact this could have on their relationships with spouses, parents etc.? Is there no way the identity of such individuals could be concealed without compromising the transparency of the court system?

My first post #3 got confused!

As to the quoted post - It struck me too as quite unusual. How you you get a guy to stand up in court and discuss his sexual preferences as a witness, especially when we are dealing with the likes of submission and cutting etc

coylemj · 15-02-2015 6:34pm

IRE60 wrote: »

As to the quoted post - It struck me too as quite unusual. How you you get a guy to stand up in court and discuss his sexual preferences as a witness, especially when we are dealing with the likes of submission and cutting etc

He must have been persuaded to make a statement by the Gardai. If they have a statement from you, it allows them to summons you as a witness in a court case. His reward for what he possibly thought was an act of civic-mindedness was to have his name splashed all over the papers.

brooke 2 · 24-03-2015 10:41am

coylemj wrote: »

He must have been persuaded to make a statement by the Gardai. If they have a statement from you, it allows them to summons you as a witness in a court case. His reward for what he possibly thought was an act of civic-mindedness was to have his name splashed all over the papers.

Iirc, he was one of six such witnesses, yet he was the only one who had to face
the mêlée as he left the courts. I felt very sorry for him as the media jackals
pursued him, even as far as following him into the shop where he was obviously
going to escape. How did the other guys leave the building?

coylemj · 25-03-2015 5:23pm

brooke 2 wrote: »

Iirc, he was one of six such witnesses, yet he was the only one who had to face
the mêlée as he left the courts.

Not sure about a mêlée but excluding Gardai and technical witnesses, more than one of the witnesses with blameless characters had their photos splashed across national newspapers and we're talking in some cases of so-called 'quality' newspapers.

CramCycle · 25-03-2015 5:45pm

coylemj wrote: »

Not sure about a mêlée but excluding Gardai and technical witnesses, more than one of the witnesses with blameless characters had their photos splashed across national newspapers and we're talking in some cases of so-called 'quality' newspapers.

Not sure where your talking about but it's been a few years since Ireland had quality daily newspapers of any description.

brooke 2 · 25-03-2015 6:20pm

coylemj wrote: »

Not sure about a mêlée but excluding Gardai and technical witnesses, more than one of the witnesses with blameless characters had their photos splashed across national newspapers and we're talking in some cases of so-called 'quality' newspapers.

I think there should be some protection from the media for innocent people who are called as witnesses in cases like this, where their lives could be adversely affected by all the publicity. It is not outside the realms of possibility, as I can remember the uproar from some journalists when a vital witness in the Howth murder
case a few years ago was brought to the courts via a back door
to the building. One of the BDSM witnesses in this case was thrown to the wolves while the other main BDSM witness seems to have escaped such treatment.

I also think the women who were in the psychiatric hospital with
EOH should also have been afforded some privacy. Things are
not so ideal in Ireland that everybody would be happy with that
information being made public. These people are doing their civic
duty by appearing as witnesses in a gruesome case. They should
not suffer for it.

coylemj · 26-03-2015 1:52am

CramCycle wrote: »

Not sure where your talking about but it's been a few years since Ireland had quality daily newspapers of any description.

You're not sure what I'm talking about?

What I referred to was "so-called 'quality' newspapers'."

If you don't get the term 'so-called' or you can't appreciate the subtlety of putting quotes around the word 'quality' then I'm not really interested in your opinion.

hfallada · 26-03-2015 1:59am

The media reports what people want to hear/know. If people didnt want to hear about murders, they wouldnt be published. But horrific stories like these sells papers, because people to read it. Like the way some people love a conservative tv station and therefore watch Fox News. Fox News wouldnt exist today, if thre wasnt people who share the values of the network and like its stories. Media outlets report what their target audience wants to hear.

OP a better question to ask why is society so obsessed with horrible court cases like this. But people are fascinated by murders.

CramCycle · 26-03-2015 1:19pm

coylemj wrote: »

You're not sure what I'm talking about?

What I referred to was "so-called 'quality' newspapers'."

If you don't get the term 'so-called' or you can't appreciate the subtlety of putting quotes around the word 'quality' then I'm not really interested in your opinion.

I agreed with you, since subtlety isn't clear, i will put a giant emoticon beside my posts in future, so what is clearly being said is more obvious :rolleyes:

You said "so called quality" newspapers, I was merely clarifying that in terms of daily newspapers in Ireland, such a thing does not exist i.e. quality, so called or otherwise.

angwd · 09-04-2015 6:04pm

I was appalled by the coverage in the Indo. In particular how they showed Elaine in a most unflattering manner both verbally and in picture format and I don't understand why they needed to constantly show pictures of Dwyer's wife and Elaine's father and partner. By contrast there were fewer photos of Dwyer's family, why?

I notice today there was a piece plugging the Dwyer brothers book thinly veiled as their distress at the public's apparent perception that the book was about Elaine. Gutter tactics and of late online comments are disabled for almost everything.

AlekSmart · 12-04-2015 12:18pm

angwd wrote: »

I was appalled by the coverage in the Indo. In particular how they showed Elaine in a most unflattering manner both verbally and in picture format and I don't understand why they needed to constantly show pictures of Dwyer's wife and Elaine's father and partner. By contrast there were fewer photos of Dwyer's family, why?

I notice today there was a piece plugging the Dwyer brothers book thinly veiled as their distress at the public's apparent perception that the book was about Elaine. Gutter tactics and of late online comments are disabled for almost everything.

There does appear to be a developing trend within the Independent group to adopt a certain "line" in these high-profile cases.

Whilst it's often down to personal interpretation,I sense some broader policy now being brought to the fore.

The current crusade with the Irish Independent titles appears to focus on Eamonn Lillis.

I'can't say I'm overly familiar with the case,however having been convicted,in open court,of Manslaughter then appropriately sentenced,Mr Lillis has served that sentence.

The series of atricles appearing over the past week on Independent Group front-pages appeared intent on imposing some additional punishment on the man.

I've no problem with increased sentences for such crimes,BUT...only of imposed by the duly constituted Courts and with the relevant backing of the Law.

Reading today's Front Page in relation to Lillis's release suggests,to me,that issues other than Journalistic freedom and quality of copy are in play....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/eamonn-lilliss-manic-seven-hours-of-freedom-before-fleeing-country-31135385.html

The name Joyce Fegan appears at the top,but we find at the bottom that significant additional Journalistic resources were utilised to produce a highly oddball article (IMO).

Additional reporting by Maeve Sheehan, Ronald Quinlan and Claire Mc Cormack

From a readers perspective,I would challenge the term "reporting" in that summation.

Have to say,I haven't got as far as the other four seperate links to Eamonn Lillis related pieces apparently deemed of importance enough to dominate the Sunday Independent today.

My question to the floor essentially is,for what reason is the Independent Group allocating this level of reportage to the actions of a man,who whether we like it or not,is not engaged in anything unlawful ?

Fred Swanson · 12-04-2015 2:37pm

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart · 14-04-2015 5:50pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

More of this distinctly odd editorial behaviour today from Independent titles.....Ken Foy is the reporter,however his article is carried under a Banner mentioning Eamonn Lillis's release...with NOTHING whatsoever to link the two occurrences....NOTHING...not even an attempt to offer a reason for reducing the seriousness of the Dumbrell issue simply to have the name Eamonn Lillis appear on the headline....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/killer-held-prison-officer-hostage-as-lillis-was-freed-31140533.html

Was the unconnected headline chosen by Ken Foy,or by some anonymous managerial personage.??

flogen · 14-04-2015 8:11pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

More of this distinctly odd editorial behaviour today from Independent titles.....Ken Foy is the reporter,however his article is carried under a Banner mentioning Eamonn Lillis's release...with NOTHING whatsoever to link the two occurrences....NOTHING...not even an attempt to offer a reason for reducing the seriousness of the Dumbrell issue simply to have the name Eamonn Lillis appear on the headline....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/killer-held-prison-officer-hostage-as-lillis-was-freed-31140533.html

Was the unconnected headline chosen by Ken Foy,or by some anonymous managerial personage.??

Generally headlines are written by sub-editors - but given the cost-cutting in INM, and the move to encourage reporters to do more of the work of a sub - I'm not sure if that's still the case there.

The article does mention Lillis too - in the context of him being released from the same prison just minutes before the Dumbrell incident - but that's about it.

CramCycle · 14-04-2015 9:15pm

To me it reads that prison security should be more focused on those inside than helping thise being released. Oddly enough, their need to go over and above with Lillis's release is solely due to the media assault that was awaiting.

Headline could also have read:

Prison guard held captive while Journalists and Photographers waste valuable resources of the Irish Prison service

IRE60 · 15-04-2015 11:00am

CramCycle wrote: »

Prison guard held captive while Journalists and Photographers waste valuable resources of the Irish Prison service

You'd never squeeze that across two decks - even at 12pts and you Kearned the life out of the sentence.

Just wouldn't work

Protect the dignity of the dead in courts reporting

Comments