Solicitors 'refuse to give journalists their names'
A leading court reporting agency says increasing numbers of solicitors are refusing to give their full name to journalists when appearing in court.
Guy Toyn, news editor at Central News, told the Gazette that up to one in every 20 solicitors his reporters comes across asks to remain anonymous.
He said the trend - repeated at courts across London - had started in the aftermath of last summer’s riots.
Solicitors who refuse to give their names to reporters are breaching the Ministry of Justice Criminal Procedure Rules, amended last October. These state that journalists are entitled to know the identities of prosecutors, defendants, judges and magistrates whenever the hearing is in public.
‘I am astonished that barristers and solicitors can be so rude and not have the common courtesy to give their [first] name,’ said Toyn.
‘We can ask the court clerk but often they have just the firm’s name or the lawyer’s surname. Every newspaper’s style is for the full name so they won’t use the story. There’s no reason [for solicitors to be anonymous] and it’s set down in statute that we’re entitled to it.’
He added that the ‘overwhelming majority’ of solicitors were helpful to reporters and understood the responsibilities of the press. But a minority were also likely to ‘clam up’ when approached by a journalist, especially at courts where the press benches are usually empty.
Toyn has contacted the Ministry of Justice to report the problem and is considering approaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority if it continues.
The agency has also encountered problems with information gathering at coroner’s courts, including one in Southwark where the address of the deceased is held back. In one case, that meant the story of a UK citizen murdered abroad could not be reported.
Comments
Erroneous Complaint by Mr Toyn
I have had a few conversations on Twitter with whomever controls the account @CourtNewsUK. I do not know if it is Mr Toyn (or Guy Toyn as he would probably prefer to be called) or one of his colleagues.
There are a few errors in both his argument and your article, though I don't know how many of the assertions you claim for yourself and how many you ascribe to Toyn.
1. Solicitors who refuse to give their names to reporters are NOT breaching the Criminal Procedure Rules. Rule 5.8, which is the rule dealing with the supply of information about a case to the public, including journalists, requires the person seeking that information to apply to the court officer. There is a process to be followed which is more than simply asking people for their names. If Mr Toyn is going to cite the Rules in his favour, then he must expect to be held to them too.
2. The information required to be provided by Rule 5.8(6)(f) is the 'identity' of [various people], not the 'full name'. 'Identity' is not defined in the Rules, so there is no specific requirement to give a first name. 'Mr Smith', for example, will suffice.
3. It seems the reason the information is now to be made available is to avoid anonymity in what are public proceedings, where justice must be seen to be done. I agree with Mr Toyn that (most of the time) there is no reason for an individual to remain anonymous. Providing enough information to identify him or her is what is required, however, not their first name.
4. The statement, that the reason barristers and solicitors refuse to give their first name is rudeness, is very broad and, most likely, inaccurate. As stated above, there is no obligation to give any details, let alone a first name. Why should a busy lawyer who has a job to concentrate on speak to the press at all? Why, if they do, should they provide their first name. Remember, it is NOT required by the Criminal Procedure Rules and the journalist should be asking the court officer anyway (of course, a quick chat with the individual may be fruitful, but as incorrect allegations of breaching the Rules are being made, perhaps fewer lawyers will now want to co-operate). In any event, what is 'rude' or discourteous about saying 'My name is Mr Smith'? Further, there may be genuine security concerns held by the individual.
5. Mr Toyn's argument is concerned with being able to sell his reports to the press and the requirement by 'every newspaper for the full name'. Clearly, the Rules Committee did not consider it necessary specifically to require the court officer to provide individuals' first names. Enough information to identify them will do. That must be so, otherwise one has to ask where the line should be drawn. Does Mr Toyn want middle names? Dates of birth? Passport numbers?...
Correct
It is not helpful for the Gazette to say things which are simply wrong - and the fourth paragraph of this article is simply wrong. As the previous commentator points out, this matter is dealt with by Rule 5.8, which applies where a member of the public (including a reporter) "wants information [including details of the parties' representatives] about a case from the court officer". The "court officer" is not the solicitor or barrister. There is no rule which requires a lawyer to speak to a reporter, still less give his full name.
They call me Mister Tibbs
Strictly speaking, awarding your self the title 'Mister' is wrong because it's an honorific - a courtesy bestowed by others. So Sidney Poitier's character was correct to say 'They call me Mister Tibbs' but would be wrong to say 'My name is Mr Tibbs' because actually it isn't.
The solution to this storm - dare I say it, in a teacup - is surely for shy lawyers to identify themselves as (e.g.) J Bloggs.
After all, one of the most distinguished lawyers in English legal history was 'FE' Smith. I don't actually know what his forenames were...
Why are they so rude?
The question is not on of whether of not solicitors have to give their name or not - but why prosecutors, as public servants think they should be so rude to the press.
rude?
I am not sure I can agree that it is rude simply to decline to give one's name to a reporter. Telling him to f*ck off clearly would be. Indeed prosecutors are public servants, but journalists are not.
Fuss
Can you imagine the hissy fit a solicitor or barrister would throw if he wanted the name of a reporter in court and he refused to give it? Lawyers should remember that the press are regarded by the law as the eyes and ears of the public and are as just as important as the they are.
The press are certainly NOT
The press are certainly NOT as important to the lawyers client as the lawyer is-and it is the client to whom a duty is owed, not the press.
It may well be that it is appropriate to speak to the press-but that is the choice of the client and the lawyer.
The problem here is purely commercial-the product of the complainant cannot be sold without the name. On that same basis, the name has commercial value-and a charge should be made for giving it. This would seem entirely in keeping with the current view that the practise of law is merely a commercial transaction.
Important
Err, yes, reporters are just as important as lawyers. There is no point in a lawyer prosecuting anyone in the public's name if the public are not allowed to know it is happening,is there? I did not say anything about the relationship to the client.
Oh dear, what an
Oh dear, what an ill-considered view. The point of prosecution if the public don't know about it? Punishment, rehabilitation, reparation. In any event, the public can still know of it by turning up.
You said the press are as important. I wonder how proceedings would progress if the lawyers were removed from the situation (remember the original argument relates to the identity of lawyers and the tribunal).
The argument is about the ability to sell the story. The CPR do not assist with that and are not designed to.
Do keep up, old chap! The
Do keep up, old chap!
The lawyers duty is to the client and the court. This duty comes before any right of the press. The courts are open to the public-that is how we have open justice, not by the press reports, which usually concentrate on the trivial and irrelevant in any event.
No you didn't say anything about the client-because you obviously don't understand about the duty of a lawyer.
It really is this sort of the total misunderstanding which has done so much damage to the credibility of the press.
Important 2
Obviously barristers should charge for giving their name. Perhaps the more senior the barrister the greater the fee.
A good point! One imagines
A good point!
One imagines that the more senior the barrister, the more important the case-and therefore the greater the fee the story can bring. Yes, I think you have something here.