I thoroughly enjoy studying media law, and there is one topic that interests me more than any other. Below I have included an essay I have written around my topic of interest, and I hope you find the issues I have discussed as thought-provoking as I do.
The laws and codes of conduct that regulate the media are designed to balance the right for freedom of expression with other rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. An explanation of this in terms of the Reporting of Sexual Offenses
There are strict guidelines which have been put in place to regulate the media in terms of reporting on sexual offenses. Sexually motivated crimes are arguably some of the most harrowing to live through, and those victims who have been involved in a sexual attack do deserve the reporting of their attack to be done in such a way that it protects them from an invasion of privacy, does not harmfully effect their mental wellbeing and keeps them from experiencing any embarrassment or social exclusion given the nature of the attack.
The Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Conduct (Clause 11) states that:
“The press must not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification unless there is adequate justification and they are legally free to do so.”
This is a very clearly defined rule, which protects the victims of sexual offenses being identified in any way. This rule is not the same for any other form of criminal offense, as you can name the victim in cases of physical assault, burglary, fraud etc. I believe this is rule has been supplied by the PCC due to the severity of a sexual assault, and the widespread societal belief that a sexual assault is somehow far worse to admit to than any other form of criminal offense.
Sexual motivated offenses are still thought to be somewhat of a taboo subject in my opinion, and it would be fair to say that victims of sexual assault may fear social rejection, embarrassment or exclusion if what had happened to them was to be publically known.
The law also bestows lifelong anonymity upon victims of sexual offenses, as it is felt that it is a basic human right for a victim of sexual assault to be protected from the distress of receiving any kind of publicity surrounding this matter.
In the eyes of the law, from the minute an allegation is put forward about this kind of offense, the person making the complaint is assumed to be a victim of a sexual offense – even if this has not be proven yet – and is therefore given lifetime anonymity. “McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists” (2009) describes the application of this anonymity as being:
- Immediate, from the time the allegation is made, whether made by the alleged victim or anyone else
- Whether or not the allegation is subsequently withdrawn
- Whether or not anyone has told the police about it
- Whether or not the alleged perpetrator is prosecuted for it
- Whether, if there is a prosecution, there is a conviction or an acquittal
This anonymity is automatic and unconditional to all cases, unless the victim gives valid written consent for themselves to be identified, in the rare occasion that the court lifts the anonymity or if the victim in question has died as a result of the attack. The only other time that this anonymity will be lifted is if the alleged victim is prosecuted for making a false accusation of sexual assault.
Personally, I believe that the alleged victim’s right to privacy, protection of their mental wellbeing and protection from social exclusion and embarrassment by far outweighs the media’s right to freedom of expression in terms of sexual offenses. The media are still able to report on the alleged perpetrator, the court case itself and many other details involved in the case (within the guidelines of general court reporting), and therefore I can completely understand the need for laws and regulations about this matter to be upheld.
There has been, however, some debate over whether the current laws and regulations are in breach of the human rights of the alleged perpetrators of sexual offenses. As the law and regulations stand at the minute, the alleged perpetrator of a sexual offense can be identified to quite a great extent. They can have their privacy invaded in many ways, through photographs of them leaving the courts, previous convictions held against them and all other manner of personal information can be published about them (all in accordance with general court reporting regulations however).
This seems a fair trade if the person is found guilty of a sexual offense, as I do honestly believe that they have sacrificed their rights to privacy and fair treatment if they have committed a sexually motivated crime. However, it doesn’t seem so fair if the person is not convicted of the crime, and they have then been the focus of so much negative publicity and have had such a grave intrusion into their privacy – seemingly, it could be argued, without good reason.
Take for instance the coverage of former Blue Peter presenter John Leslie, who was accused of raping a fellow television presenter in 2002. Many further allegations of rape and sexual assault were bought against Leslie by many other women following this first complaint, but he was never officially charged with any form of offense.
The media went into a frenzy, publishing story after story on Leslie and the allegations being made about him. Leslie was a highly successful television personality when these allegations came to light, hosting both the Wheel of Fortune and This Morning. He lost his job on This Morning after these allegations were made, and his career was essentially destroyed.
Leslie has often spoken out about how he felt victimised by the media, was named and shamed and had his career ruined by the negative coverage of his situation.
In one particular statement given in June 2008, Leslie said of one of his accusers:
"Another person protected by anonymity that the law gives them is able to drag my name through the mud.”
It is clear in the case of John Leslie to see how the current laws and regulations regarding the reporting of sexual offenses are not necessarily doing the best they can to protect the human rights of all those involved in accusations of sexual offenses. As much as the laws and regulations work to protect the human rights of the alleged victims of sexual assault, it does very little to help protect the human rights of those who are falsely accused or never convicted of sexual assault. It doesn’t seem right that somebody can make a false accusation of sexual assault, be allowed full anonymity unless they are prosecuted of making a false accusation, and yet the person who may have been falsely accused of a sexual offense has very few rights to privacy or protection of their human rights.
This is an extremely difficult call to make, as the pros and cons of the current situation seem to be almost impossible to get around. If you rework the laws and regulations to have a greater freedom of expression over the identification of all those involved in allegations of sexual assault then you risk breaching the human rights of the alleged victims. Similarly, if you rework the laws and regulations to have a greater value on the privacy of all those involved in allegations of sexual assault then you run the risk of destroying the media’s right to freedom of expression. It is a really tough call, but an issue that I genuinely believe needs addressing by both the law and the Press Complaints Commission in the near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment