Media law

Putting broadcasters through their PACEsGreater Manchester Police v BBC Leeds, ITN, Sky News and Yorkshire TelevisionThe summer months saw a crop of riots - in Oldham, Burnley and Leeds - brought to the watching eyes of the public in news and current affairs programmes broadcast by, among others, the BBC, Sky News and Yorkshire Television.

The unexpected consequence of these riots has been a number of actions by the police against those broadcast organisations for the seizure of their film footage.

Unexpected maybe, but not unheard of by those news organisations, explains Mike Briscoe, head of news gathering for BBC north-west.On 9 August, Mr Justice Woodward, sitting at the Minshull Street Crown Court in Manchester, granted a request from the Greater Manchester police for BBC Leeds, ITN, Sky News and Yorkshire Television to hand over footage taken at the scene of the Oldham riots last May.Under section 39 of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), the court has the power to grant a request by police authorities for the delivery of 'journalistic material'.

Such applications are made where the police believe the material will assist them in finding and prosecuting offenders.In general terms, the court may make such an order where several factors have been met: a serious arrestable offence has been committed and there is reason to believe that it has been filmed; the media has material likely to be of value and relevance to the police, not all of which is yet in the public domain; and other sources of identification of the persons involved, such as eye witness testimony and scientific evidence, have not been successful.Taking each of these in turn, in the Greater Manchester case there was little doubt that serious arrestable offences would have been committed in the riots.

With the media present and filming events, it would have been difficult for them to have failed to capture on film something which the police might consider useful.

It seems unlikely that any eye witness accounts would be forthcoming, given the understandable fear that any such person might be endangering their own lives were they to come forward.

And in a mass event such as the Oldham riots, forensic evidence is unlikely to have been available or of much use.The judge in such an application has to weigh the interests of justice in the police obtaining the information with a view to detecting crime, against the interests of the media organisations concerned.

Mr Justice Woodward accepted that the evidence of the film footage was 'likely to be of substantial value on its own and with other material' and, while considering the position of the media, granted the application.One might ask why media organisations oppose such applications.

Why not simply give their footage to the police when asked, if it will help in identifying, arresting and prosecuting the offenders? As Mr Briscoe told the Gazette, 'Many people are bound to feel that it is not right for the BBC to drag its feet and go unwillingly toward its inevitable fate.'However, there may be valid reasons why broadcasters consider it is justifiable and even necessary, including, importantly, the safety of the broadcast organisation's own staff.

Mr Briscoe explains 'If it is felt that each time a camera crew turns up at a civil disturbance it is a ready source of material for the police, then this could easily put those camera crews in physical danger.'The corollary of this is a potentially dangerous chilling of free speech.

If media organisations, worried for the safety of those individuals whom they put into the fray to film the events, are not prepared to risk their staff's health and safety, events such as Oldham will not be reported.

This may be the thin end of a wedge which will result in matters of great pubic concern never reaching the ears and eyes of the public.Lord Nicholls' description of the press in the case of Reynolds as 'bloodhound as well as watchdog', marks it firmly as society's own beast.

Therefore, the independence of the media is of vital importance.

While few would deny the necessary and difficult job being done by the police for the safety and preservation of society, there should be no question of the media being seen to wag its tail and come running whenever the police call.

It is for that reason, that such applications are opposed, leaving it for the judge to decide where the balance should rightly be drawn.According to Mr Briscoe, there needs to be some changes for a better balance to be achieved between the requirements of the police and the media.

'PACE gives no leeway to media organisations.

The only way forward is for there to be greater clarification from the Lord Chancellor as to the meaning of and the weight that should be given to public interest, or for there to be a change in the law'.One final thought: why did the police need to bother the media organisations for their footage at all, given that they took their own cameras to the events and given the existence in Oldham of local authority CCTV? These facilities appear to have let the police down.

The force's three video cameras were not able to provide good enough quality film footage in the dark.

As noted by the judge, the police helicopter cameras could not clearly identify the offenders from their aerial positions.

And out of the 16 CCTV cameras in Oldham, only six were useable on the night in question - while out of those six, only two were in the centre where the action occurred, and of these only one was in use, the other having been put out of action by the rioters.It would appear that on this occasion, not only was the media the watchdog and bloodhound of society, but also a guide dog for the police.

By Amber Melville-Brown, Finers Stephens Innocent, London