Will the government watchdog bite media cash handouts?

The Gary Glitter case raised concerns about payments to witnesses, says Amber Melville-Brown

The watchdog and bloodhound of society, chastised by an angry government threatening punishment, put its head on one side and raised its sorrowful puppy eyes as if to say, 'I won't do it again.

Honest.' What should government do? Rub its nose in the mess to ensure that it learns its lesson? Or forgive and forget?

This is the decision that government had to make when considering whether it needed to legislate over payments by the media to witnesses in criminal matters.

It has perhaps found the middle ground.

Or has it sat on the fence?

In March this year, a consultation paper was issued by the government after fears were raised relating to a number of high-profile cases that payments by the media to witnesses giving evidence in criminal trials might either affect the course of justice or at least give the impression of so doing.

After all, the great motto of the British legal system is that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.

In the case of pop singer Gary Glitter, it emerged after his acquittal on child-sex charges that a witness had been paid 10,000 for the story which formed the basis of the allegations against him, with a further 25,000 to be paid if he was convicted.

The rationale for the consultation was the potentially harmful effect such payments might have on the administration of justice.

Media organisations, for the main part, have huge financial resources at their disposal.

Offers of money for a tasty story from a witness might, it was suggested, lead to witnesses spicing up their account of events in turn for a greater fee.

Their evidence at trial might then be compromised: less of 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth', but more of 'the truth, a little invention and exaggeration and the option on a two-part serialisation if the price is right'.

The government, which through the Lord Chancellor referred to payments to witnesses as 'the most pernicious practice', quite categorically stated in the consultation paper that it 'has decided to introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence to make, or agree to make, or to receive, a payment to a witness or potential witness in criminal proceedings for their story with a view to publication.' He went on that 'this consultation is about the details of that legislation'.

Quite clear then, that legislation would be forthcoming.

But with the apparent ease of David toppling Goliath with a small stone, the mighty government entertained the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) suggestions that 'it might be possible to achieve this objective through tougher media self-regulation'.

It might be, yes.

But then David might have dropped his slingshot and Goliath might have socked him from here to eternity.

Only time will tell.

In this (shock) turnaround, the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) has said that it will not intervene on this occasion, but will give the media just one more chance to get its house in order and strengthen the voluntary code to which it adheres.

In its response to the consultation paper, the PCC pressed all the right buttons.

It reasonably stated: 'If it can be shown that the administration of justice is at risk from the practice of newspapers and others paying witnesses - or that self-regulation has failed to deal with any problem - then the PCC will readily support practical and effective legislation in this area.'

It threatened that such a course of conduct: 'May well act as a brake on legitimate reporting of matters in the public interest each time there is major criminal trial.'

It posited: 'That cannot be the intention of a government committed to open justice and freedom of information.'

And it helpfully concluded: 'If the government - after consultation - remains of the view that there is a proven need for action...

the PCC itself will be pleased to help in drafting proposals.'

In between, it explained why the six cases in 50 years relied on by the consultation paper - Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, Jeremy Thorpe, Peter Sutcliffe, Fred West, Gadd (Glitter) and Amy Gehring - do not provide a sufficiently strong backdrop to show first that there was any real mischief on behalf of the papers, and second, that self-regulation had failed in the event that there was.

After all, the Glitter case has been the only breach of the code in its 11 years' existence.

However, the LCD, in explaining its decision not to proceed with legislation at this stage, did have the last word.

It authoritatively stated: 'The government remains ready to legislate should increased self-regulation not take place, or if the revised rules should be breached.' Well, that's a relief then.

Amber Melville-Brown is a partner with London firm Schillings and the Gazette's media law correspondent