The Tom Stephens / Ipswich Murders interview

Judt

The Beeb is having a bit of its usual editors soul searching going on, after publishing a background interview (originally not for transmission) from Tom Stephens, a man later arrested (though not yet charged) on suspicion's of murdering the five women in Ipswich.

Personally I think this whole thing has become a media circus – the 24 hour stations commenting every time a technical expert steps outside to get something from the back of his van as if it were some earth shattering, newsworthy piece of information. However the broadcast of this interview seems, to me, to have taken it a bit too far – media organistations (not just the Beeb – everyone has their moment in the sun these days, it would seem) are going so far as to prejidous and preempt the judicial system in order to garner – ultimately – good ratings.

This interview was given in private, as background info and not to be broadcast. Once the chap is arrested they jump the gun and we see “BBC” being grudgeingly uttered from the mouths of every rival news organisation who never the less have spun themselves into covering this story so well. So, if this guy goes to trial every juror in the land will have a previous conception about him; and if he is released the man will be tarnished beyond what normally comes from our “Guilty until proven innocent, and then only talked about snidely” media world.

Thoughts?

flogen

In an ideal situation the jury in a trial will have no preconceptions about the accused at all, although this often is impossible to maintain.

In this case, the whole debate has been focused on the BBC's decision to air a confidential recording (which, in my mind is akin to naming a source who you promised to protect up until then), however no one has batted an eye-lid at the fact that Stephens has been named by the media, as has the second suspect.
I was also surprised to see the BBC use his [Stephens] Myspace page to fatten out their reporting, something that I'm sure has led to plenty of abuse for the man online.
What is now happening with both suspects is that the wider public are learning more and more about their private lives, including information that is not relevant to the trial and may not have been brought up in court otherwise. This can go either way and depending on the information it has every possibility of giving a juror a preconception before they're even called for duty (for example, neighbours describing the suspect as either a loner who kept to himself or a well-liked family man will push public opinion away from neutral either way).

There's also the possibility of the media only giving a limited picture of the person once they start giving out details of their lives; that can happen intentionally or unintentionally. The fact is that the media are not going to be able to give a full account of this person, and will only focus on the more interesting aspects (read: aspects that would draw their character/integrity into question, make people have reason to be suspicious of them etc.) of their lives, and these are often the things that has made them a suspect in the first place.

Will it lead to the trial being thrown out? I don't think so, not yet anyway. There has been plenty of borderline stuff but nothing to truly bias a potential trial just yet (that I can see). That said it is almost certain to make it 100 times more difficult to get a 100% objective jury.

Dundalk Daily

13.19 Sky has just been caught out by a local resident. They had pictures on screen "Live" from the Sky News chopper but a resident emailed in to say that he was living in the area and there was no chopper in the sky. Sky then apologised and said the pictures were taken earlier.

Milktrolley

Dundalk Daily wrote:

13.19 Sky has just been caught out by a local resident. They had pictures on screen "Live" from the Sky News chopper but a resident emailed in to say that he was living in the area and there was no chopper in the sky. Sky then apologised and said the pictures were taken earlier.

Delighted!

I was watching yesterday when Sky revealed the name of the second man, while Julie Etchingham kept reiterating that this wasn't confirmed by the police, just confirmed by "Sky Sources". Is that even legal? Until yesterday I didn't think it was.

A quick follow-up on Flogen's post; TV3 also included the Myspace page in their report. I guess now I know where that idea came from...

Flukey

Any time I see someone being arrested and/or see a "lynch mob" outside a court hurling abuse at someone, I think it is terrible. The person may be innocent. How many times have we seen it. We've often seen people found guilty and later being shown to be innocent. Much of the public are automatically assuming Tom Stephens is guilty. He may not be. Many of the prostitutes think he is innocent. He may not be. We will have to wait and see and reserve judgement. That is what most sensible people will do. In these situations though, people often diverge from their common sense and go in with the lynch mobs.

Judt

Loopholes, that's what the media uses to get away with it - they can name anybody, I'm sure. However it's a matter of integrity - of the media and the judicial system - rather than what you can get away with.

There's a fine line between keeping the tabloid hacks at bay and media censorship I know, but I really think that there are just some things the media should not be allowed to broadcast in instances like this - judges can impose media blackouts during trials, we have them before elections... why not at a time like this?

flogen

Milktrolley wrote:

I was watching yesterday when Sky revealed the name of the second man, while Julie Etchingham kept reiterating that this wasn't confirmed by the police, just confirmed by "Sky Sources". Is that even legal? Until yesterday I didn't think it was.

I don't think it's illegal, as such. As long as they can argue that it won't prejudice a trial they can get away with it, and even when it does (and the trial gets thrown out of court) they might get a slap on the wrist or a fine, but it doesn't make them change tact.

It shouldn't be an issue of damaging a future trial though, the reason the rule (or ethical rule) exists is, as Flukey points out, to save innocent people from being wrongly labeled.
[Hypothetical] If someone is taken in for questioning in relation to a rape case and is subsequently released without any charge whatsoever, once people know who the person was then some will start thinking that "there's no smoke without fire". How can anyone be expected to shake that off, and why should an innocent person be forced to anyway?

Dundalk Daily

The British Attorney General has issued a warning to the media regarding their coverage of this case. Link to follow.

Judt

Dundalk Daily wrote:

The British Attorney General has issued a warning to the media regarding their coverage of this case. Link to follow.

Heh, yes, I was watching some of the coverage of that. It's amazing how they want to have their cake and eat it, referring to "The media" in the third person as if it's some evil organization that they have nothing to do with.

The crime reporter is speaking about it, how it might prejudice any trial and so forth; the main presenter says "And of course, the problem is that all somebody has to do if this comes to trial is google the persons name or the crime... cut out to logo... And of course if you want to find out more about this see our special microsite, with full background information and maps."

It's actually pretty sickening the way they're bemoaning the fact that a trial could collapse because of media oversaturation (they've admitted as much that they are carrying out an investigation alongside the police - the police interview a witness, then the media does).

flogen

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1221/suffolk.html

Suspect #2 (Stephen Wright) has been charged while Suspect #1 (Tom Stephens) has been released pending further enquiries.

Naturally conclusions cannot be drawn in either case but there is now a greater chance that Stephens will slip from the media's gaze if the police keep away from him; but what kind of a reputation has he now, and what kind of a stigma has the media coverage created?

Now that someone has been charged and can actually be (legitimately) named, what levels will the media go to? I'm sure there'll at least be an attempt to have the case thrown out due to the media coverage; be it deserved or not.

Judt

I think what'll happen now is multi-faceted - for one, Stephens will have to move far, far away from Ipswich. If he's perfectly vindicated and people harass him / he can prove a case that his life has been damaged by unfair media exposure he might make a pretty penny off of this, but his right to peace and quiet within the UK has been thrown away in the name or rati... the public interest.

The media is now under much stricter controls that a man has been charged - ironically, the guy most of us couldn't name off the top of our heads. However I daresay it won't stop them pushing it - and I think that Flogen is right; if I am a defence lawyer for this chap and nothing better presents itself beyond the defence of insanity (if, if, if) then I'd go for "The media dunnit"

Dundalk Daily

I was thinking much the same when the press conference was on last night. The guy who has been released on bail if he is comoletely innocent his life has been changed forever, for the worse. I wonder what media outlets he will have a case against. Who will have that exclusive interview with him now ?

santosubito

flogen wrote:

I don't think it's illegal, as such. As long as they can argue that it won't prejudice a trial they can get away with it, and even when it does (and the trial gets thrown out of court) they might get a slap on the wrist or a fine, but it doesn't make them change tact.

It shouldn't be an issue of damaging a future trial though, the reason the rule (or ethical rule) exists is, as Flukey points out, to save innocent people from being wrongly labeled.
[Hypothetical] If someone is taken in for questioning in relation to a rape case and is subsequently released without any charge whatsoever, once people know who the person was then some will start thinking that "there's no smoke without fire". How can anyone be expected to shake that off, and why should an innocent person be forced to anyway?

Well, in Ireland, people charged with rape can't be named until they've been convicted, never mind charged (there is a section of the rape act specificaly preventing it) so it's highly unlikely anyone being questioned would ever be named. I've never come across that happening.

From the Rape Act:
8. —(1) After a person is charged with a rape offence no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify him as the person against whom the charge is made shall be published in a written publication available to the public or be broadcast except—

( a ) as authorised by a direction given in pursuance of this section or by virtue of section 7 (8) ( a ) as applied by subsection (6) of this section, or
( b ) after he has been convicted of the offence.

santosubito

Judt wrote:

I think what'll happen now is multi-faceted - for one, Stephens will have to move far, far away from Ipswich. If he's perfectly vindicated and people harass him / he can prove a case that his life has been damaged by unfair media exposure he might make a pretty penny off of this, but his right to peace and quiet within the UK has been thrown away in the name or rati... the public interest.

The media is now under much stricter controls that a man has been charged - ironically, the guy most of us couldn't name off the top of our heads. However I daresay it won't stop them pushing it - and I think that Flogen is right; if I am a defence lawyer for this chap and nothing better presents itself beyond the defence of insanity (if, if, if) then I'd go for "The media dunnit"

I don't see how he could possibly get a single penny. Remember, he did an interview with the Sunday Mirror in which he said he was the "number one suspect". You can't have your cake and eat it, I'm afraid.

You can just imagine any self respecting QC tearing him to shreds in the witness stand.
Also, if you were a defence lawyer for this chap, how would you counter him talking freely to at least two media outlets before he was arrested? Anyway, that's academic now, I suppose.

santosubito

Dundalk Daily wrote:

I was thinking much the same when the press conference was on last night. The guy who has been released on bail if he is comoletely innocent his life has been changed forever, for the worse. I wonder what media outlets he will have a case against. Who will have that exclusive interview with him now ?

I think that's the more likely scenario - he'll make a fiortune from the media. But not from libel, from selling his story,

santosubito

flogen wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1221/suffolk.html

Suspect #2 (Stephen Wright) has been charged while Suspect #1 (Tom Stephens) has been released pending further enquiries.

Naturally conclusions cannot be drawn in either case but there is now a greater chance that Stephens will slip from the media's gaze if the police keep away from him; but what kind of a reputation has he now, and what kind of a stigma has the media coverage created?

Now that someone has been charged and can actually be (legitimately) named, what levels will the media go to? I'm sure there'll at least be an attempt to have the case thrown out due to the media coverage; be it deserved or not.

You'll see the shutters goping down now, big time. Except for places like boards.ie and its English counterpart.
I also think people should really chill about pre charge publicity. In Ireland, for example, Mr Justice Paul Carney - who handles rape and murder trials - has oft spoken of the fact that juries in this country are robust enough to deal with the evidence put before them and nothing else. Anyway, papers and other media here have a pretty good record of behaving once someone has appeared in front of a judge.;

Judt

santosubito wrote:

I don't see how he could possibly get a single penny. Remember, he did an interview with the Sunday Mirror in which he said he was the "number one suspect". You can't have your cake and eat it, I'm afraid.

You can just imagine any self respecting QC tearing him to shreds in the witness stand.
Also, if you were a defence lawyer for this chap, how would you counter him talking freely to at least two media outlets before he was arrested? Anyway, that's academic now, I suppose.

I was referring to the second chap, who has been charged. Stephens will need the money from selling his story to set up shop in some faraway land.

Another thread points to how, for example, his MySpace profile was scrutinized by the media. Now, having this info in the public domain makes it fair game for exposure - but the manner in which the media has portrayed stuff like the "My Heroes" entry on a MySpace profile leaves a lot to be desired - there's a difference between reporting on events and tearing them to shreds with BS.

Whether Stephens makes money or the chap charged uses this as leverage or not doesn't really matter; what about some standards of intelligence in reporting? Who can't say they've never written stupid stuff in a MySpace profile which I'm sure some hack could tear to bits if you were ever arrested on suspicion of something?

flogen

santosubito wrote:

Well, in Ireland, people charged with rape can't be named until they've been convicted, never mind charged (there is a section of the rape act specificaly preventing it) so it's highly unlikely anyone being questioned would ever be named. I've never come across that happening.

From the Rape Act:
8. —(1) After a person is charged with a rape offence no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify him as the person against whom the charge is made shall be published in a written publication available to the public or be broadcast except—

( a ) as authorised by a direction given in pursuance of this section or by virtue of section 7 (8) ( a ) as applied by subsection (6) of this section, or
( b ) after he has been convicted of the offence.

My mistake; I couldn't remember if the act only forbid naming the suspect/convicted if doing so would make it obvious who the victim was (which is often the case anyway).

That said, you can change my original hypothetical to any other serious case, such as the downloading of child pornography etc.

As for the comments of Judge Carney, that's fair enough, but I think there is a danger of people developing an opinion of the persons personality based on media reports (more so than being influenced by overtly bias reporting or the wink-wink nature of reporting that certain newspapers engage in.)