No tracking. No cookies
Subscriptions
Subscriptions
Newsletter offer
Newsletter offerSubscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
The independent press watchdog has written to the UK’s most senior legal authority asking for an explanation of why a warning notice was issued to reporters regarding reporting on Russell Brand.
The comedian faces allegations of sexual assault and rape – all of which he denies – but has not been charged or arrested.
The Attorney General, currently Victoria Prentis KC MP, sometimes issues advice during legal proceedings, urging media outlets and citizens to be careful to avoid disrupting a fair judicial process – particularly when there is a fear that speculation could be seen by a jury.
But on 22 September, Victoria Prentis – the government’s top adviser on legal matters – issued a notice to outlets saying she is “monitoring the coverage” of the allegations into Brand, despite there being little imminent threat of contempt of court.
Don’t miss a story
She said in a statement: “Following the airing of “Russell Brand: In Plain Sight: Dispatches” on 16 September 2023, there has been extensive reporting about Russell Brand.
“The Attorney General, the Rt Hon Victoria Prentis KC MP, wishes to amplify the importance of not publishing any material where there is a risk that it could prejudice any potential criminal investigation or prosecutions. Publishing this material could amount to contempt of court.
“Editors, publishers, and social media users should take legal advice to ensure they are in a position to fully comply with the obligations to which they are subject under the common law and Contempt of Court Act 1981.”
It triggered widespread anger from editors, journalists and media freedom groups. Now the CEO of Impress, Lexie Kirkconnell-Kawana, has written to the Attorney General expressing her concerns.
As there were no active proceedings at the time of its release, press standards body Impress says it was a move that “risks stifling investigative journalism moving forward and potentially limits free expression.”
Chilling Effect
In a letter to the Attorney General on Wednesday, the Impress chief says: “In your warning you advise editors, publishers, and social media users to “seek legal advice” before publishing material on the allegations lest they may prejudice “potential criminal investigation or prosecutions” and may subsequently be thought to be in contempt of court.
“However, at the time of your warning criminal proceedings were not active. As a result, there is no possibility of a publisher being found to have been in contempt of court for anything published before an investigation commenced.
“As the chief legal adviser of the Crown and its government, you and your office’s decisions hold significant weight to the public’s perception of due process and legal norms. You are of course entitled to remind the public that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. However, a Legal Officer’s duty is to apply the law, not to interfere with the editorial decisions of a free press.”
She added: “We will also robustly defend journalists and publishers’ right to investigate and to report allegations of serious crime where legally permissible.”
The statement went on: “I would be grateful if you could explain why your warning was published; the legal basis for it, including any legal advice received; whether due consideration was given to the action being reasonable and proportionate, in light of its potentially chilling effect upon free expression; and whether your office expects to apply similar advice to the press in future cases. If so, we kindly request any internal policy you have so that we may review it.”
#MediaToo investigation AND CROWDFUNDER
This is the start of a wider report into the toxic culture of the national media. We want to keep telling the story. Contributions to our #MediaToo crowdfunder will go directly to funding our journalism.
Contribute to our #MediaToo crowdfunderA spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office told Byline Times: “We are committed to the principles of open justice and press freedom. However, given the extended period and nature of the coverage of these allegations, the media advisory was issued to remind journalists to exercise caution as common law contempt considerations apply, despite proceedings not currently being “active”.
The government claims that proceedings do not need to be imminent or active for contempt of court to apply to publications – claiming that a case in 1988, AG v News Group Newspapers Ltd [The Sun], justified the decision to publish the warning.
However, in that case – a doctor facing allegations he raped an eight year old girl – the accused was facing trial and a date had been set. The Sun was found in contempt of court.
The judge’s decision was based on a trial being imminent at the time of publication and therefore a real risk of reporting interfering with the course of justice. (As it happens, the doctor was eventually acquitted.)
Impress is the UK’s official press watchdog but currently primarily regulates smaller outlets (not including Byline Times). The big publishers have rejected it in favour of so-called ‘self-regulation’ through Ipso, the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
Letter to the Attorney General in Full
Dear Attorney General, I am writing to you from Impress, the Independent Monitor for the Press, to express our concern at the recent media advisory notice issued from your office regarding reporting on Russell Brand and the allegations made against him.
In your warning you advise editors, publishers, and social media users to “seek legal advice” before publishing material on the allegations lest they may prejudice “potential criminal investigation or prosecutions” and may subsequently be thought to be in contempt of court.
However, at the time of your warning criminal proceedings were not active. As a result, there is no possibility of a publisher being found to have been in contempt of court for anything published before an investigation commenced.
As the chief legal adviser of the Crown and its government, you and your office’s decisions hold significant weight to the public’s perception of due process and legal norms. You are of course entitled to remind the public that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty.
However, a Legal Officer’s duty is to apply the law, not to interfere with the editorial decisions of a free press. As the UK’s recognised press regulator, Impress ensures that regulated publishers act within the law and abide by ethical standards; we recently amended our Standards Code to reflect the legal precedent established regarding the publication of people under criminal investigation pre-charge.
We will also robustly defend journalists and publishers’ right to investigate and to report allegations of serious crime where legally permissible.
I would be grateful if you could explain why your warning was published; the legal basis for it, including any legal advice received; whether due consideration was given to the action being reasonable and proportionate, in light of its potentially chilling effect upon free expression; and whether your office expects to apply similar advice to the press in future cases. If so, we kindly request any internal policy you have so that we may review it.
Yours sincerely,
Lexie Kirkconnell-Kawana
Chief Executive Officer, Impress
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com