Media law

Payment to witnesses - strengthening the Press Complaints Commission code

Last September, the Gazette reported on the government's decision to bow to media pressure and not to legislate to stop payments by the media to witnesses in criminal matters (see [2002] Gazette, 26 September, 22).

Media organisations argued that self-regulation could do the job just as well, and the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) bought it.

The concern that the LCD sought to address, raised by a consultation paper in spring 2002, was that payments by the media to witnesses in criminal trials might affect the course of justice.

Witness accounts to the press - and later to the courts - could be subject to a little artistic licence for an additional fee.

At the very least, it was argued, there could be the impression that this was the case and justice would not be seen to be done, even if it were done.

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) argued that this was not a real risk but that in any event, any action to be taken should be by way of stricter codes of practice rather than legislation.

It set about drafting a new clause to deal with the matter, to be agreed with the LCD.

On 19 March 2003, the PCC issued a press release announcing 'important changes to editors' code'.

The principal changes mean that:

- No payments can be made to a witness in a criminal trial (or a person who may reasonably be expected to be called as a witness) once proceedings are active as defined by the Contempt of Court Act 1981, whereas previously they could be made if in the public interest and there being an overriding need to make or promise the payment;

- Where proceedings are not yet active, but likely and foreseeable, payments can only be made where there is a demonstrable public interest - and under no circumstances should payment be conditional on the outcome of a trial.

The changes to the code come into effect immediately, following formal ratification by the PCC at its meeting on 5 March.

According to Les Hinton, chairman of the code committee: 'The process has underlined the strength of the code, including its ability to evolve to meet legitimate concerns about key ethical issues.

It has also demonstrated how the code committee can work - in an open and accountable fashion - in partnership with individuals and organisations to raise standards of reporting.'

It remains to be seen whether the spectre of risk that raised the issue in the first place is a real one and whether the tightening of the code and press self-regulation is an effective way to deal with it and to raise reporting standards.

While Mr Hinton considered this matter to be 'a timely reminder of the strength of self-regulation over any form of legal control', he no doubt recalls the words of the LCD before the changes were agreed, that it 'remains ready to legislate...

if the revised rules should be breached'.

By Amber Melville-Brown, Schillings, London