Time to put the press on trialThe inaccurate coverage of Paul Bunton's court case highlighted the need for the media to be brought to account, argues Angus McBride At his recent Crown Court trial Paul Bunton - brother of Emma Bunton, of Spice Girls fame - was acquitted of assault on a submission of no case to answer.

He and his family endured three days of press reports, which they read with increasing incredulity.Members of a family familiar with the media glare were concerned that each day evidence was reported out of context, actions attributed to the wrong people, quotes from witnesses created, and headlines placed in inverted commas to give the erroneous impression of being attributable to witnesses giving evidence.There is a clear pattern among the British media in the reporting of court proceedings.

The prosecution's opening speech is extensively reported.

It is easily digested and regurgitated.

The search is then on for soundbites and headlines from successive witnesses.

A comment made in a specific context may be reported despite its emphasis having been undermined by other evidence or destroyed on cross-examination.An acquittal, except in the most noteworthy cases, or where the press disagrees with the verdict, usually merits next to no column inches.

Mr Bunton's lawyers were told that without a comment on his behalf at the end of his trial, there would be little or nothing about the acquittal in the newspapers.How far should a defendant in criminal proceedings have to tolerate inaccurate, erroneous and misleading reporting? It is clearly a principle of justice that trials should be open and the press free to report on them.

The restrictions on reporting are contained within the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

An offence is committed when a publication creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.

There is no contempt if a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings is published contemporaneously and in good faith.The Act clearly contemplates serious breaches which create a substantial risk of prejudice.

The risk of such a breach caused the collapse of the Crown Court trial involving Leeds United footballers and others.

The difficulty lies, as ever, in the area in between.Two areas of concern may fall outside the current legislation.

The first is reporting which is to all intents and purposes accurate, but is placed in such a way as to suggest a response from the reader or listener.

The pre-trial front-page picture and the headline 'This is the man who police say killed ...' is an example.

It does not create a 'substantial risk' that proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, but appears to be an attempt to push back the boundaries of trial reporting.

It can leave an accused with a sense of grievance and no redress in law.The second set of circumstances, perhaps of more concern, is the Bunton situation.

Should there not be some form of redress when a reporter has sat in court, noted the evidence, and then either he or his news editor misrepresents what the reporter has heard to the potential prejudice of the defendant?It is clear that the press will push their right to report to the limit.

Therefore, the law must ensure that an individual in a criminal trial, already being prosecuted by state authorities, should not find himself also persecuted by the media.The press can report everything once a trial has ended.

Journalists should be held to account for inaccurate, biased, or negligent reporting committed recklessly or with intent to prejudice in any way the defendant.

This would send a clear message that court proceedings are not just for sensationalism and that reporters must respect the defendant's right to be tried by a jury solely upon evidence presented in court.Angus McBride is a solicitor in the criminal litigation department at London-based Kingsley Napley and is Paul Bunton's lawyer