Press question justice system as George is sent down

The big story of the week - Barry George's conviction for the murder of Jill Dando - provoked the expected column inches in the press, but surprisingly the 'hang 'em and flog 'em' brigade was overshadowed by a more thoughtful and questioning approach.Even the Daily Mail, zero-tolerance crusader and the scourge of liberals everywhere, claimed that 'the facts do not add up' in this 'disturbing' case, with 'glaring gaps in the prosecution case' leading the paper to 'pray that the jury is right' (4 July).

Similar attitudes elsewhere in the media, with The Independent (3 July) quoting a spokesman for the Miscarriages of Justice pressure group as saying 'this is one of the worst miscarriages of justice we have ever seen...

the concepts of "beyond reasonable doubt" and "presumed innocent" have gone out of the window'.

However, the paper doubted the success for an appeal: 'The legal team face an uphill struggle...

nothing really stands out to give George an obvious ground for appeal'.The trial also reignited the debate over revealing defendants' past convictions to juries - about to be proposed by the government - which the media in general is vehemently opposed to.

The Times suggested that disclosure 'could be in breach of Human Rights Act provisions on the right to a fair trial' (4 July), and claimed that senior judges have expressed concerns that 'the move on previous convictions...

could lead to miscarriages of justice'.Elsewhere, home secretary David Blunkett's proposals for criminal sentencing reform made most of the nationals, with The Financial Times stating that 'the reforms could cost 540 million a year and send thousands more to prison' (6 July).

The Independent observed that Mr Blunkett's intention 'to "put the sense back in sentencing" sounds like a slogan mouthed by the departing Conservative leader William Hague' (6 July), but generally approved of the 'rather sensible' proposals.Recovering from its attack of liberalism, the Daily Mail was on more familiar territory when discussing the case of solicitor Robert Blick, who was last week awarded 125,000 by the Metropolitan police for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment (see [2001] Gazette, 5 July, 3).

Mr Blick's description of the 25,000 compensation element of the award as 'peanuts' did not go down well at the Mail, which thundered that 'the payment far outweighs the sums available to victims of violent crime or sexual abuse, and is likely to deepen concern over Britain's compensation culture' (3 July).Victoria MacCallum