Speak no evil

I spend my Friday mornings studying Media Law, which I have no doubt will become very handy after I graduate, and my knowledge of it will hopefully stop me being sued into bankruptcy.

It is surprising to realise just how little you can actually publish compared to the graphic details you may hear with relation to some cases. After four hours spent at Birmingham Crown Court a few weeks ago, I had heard plenty of the nitty gritty on the following case, and yet this was what I was legally allowed to publish:

Three in mentally handicapped rape charge

Three Birmingham men have been accused of raping a mentally handicapped woman from their local area, the courts heard yesterday.

Friends James Lee Reilly, Lee Daniel Holder and Lee Wayne Princep – appearing at Birmingham Crown Court - face individual charges of rape and sexual assault after meeting the woman at the Royal George pub in Birmingham earlier this year and heading back to her flat around 2am on the night in question to continue drinking.

The woman – who has been described as having a mental age of thirteen-year-old - has alleged that she asked the defendants to leave after a few hours but they refused, after which they proceeded to lock her in her bedroom while they stole her television.

The woman also claims that the three men exposed themselves to her, and that Mr Holder had her trapped in her bedroom whilst he lay on top of her and pressed his groin against her. She is claiming numerous rape and sexual assault charges against Reilly, Holder and Princep – one alleged assault is said to involve the use of a toilet roll holder.

The defendants admit to being at the woman’s flat on the night in question and claim that there were sexual activities taking place that night, but insist that the woman encouraged them to expose themselves to her and allege that she took each one of them into her bedroom to perform sex acts on them.

The woman strongly denies this and alleges that all of the sexual acts said to have happened that night were non-consensual. The case continues tomorrow.

Under the restrictions of media law:

• I could not name the claimant as she was an alleged victim of sexual assault.
• I could not report on any previous convictions against either the claimant or the defendants that were not discussed in front of the jury.
• I could not report on the claimant's previous sexual history under Section 41, as it was not strictly relevant to the current case.

It is difficult as a rookie journo to know where to draw the line with what could be considered the best or "juiciest" details of the case. I think I have a good understanding of what is legal and what isn't, and they do make that quite clear. But some areas are very much grey areas, and if you choose not to include certain gritty details you can sometimes lose the whole angle of the story.

This story is hardly front page material, but there are certain details within it which I believe make it more interesting and give it an air of the somewhat unusual - which is why I have chosen to include the particular details which others may not.

I guess the learning curve for me will not be the black and white legalities, but the grey areas which can sometimes separate the mundane from the extraordinary. The question is, how far do you push it?