Report comment

"Is there no sympathy for the argument that the BBC has a duty to campaign for the principle that evidence presented in open court should be available for the (fair and accurate) reporting of proceedings?"

Not from me, Michael. I am 15.32, and a vocal supporter of the BBC. I just think they got this one wrong. Maybe there was a compelling editorial reason to show this footage, but if so, they haven't explained what it was. There has to be a difference between the public interest, and that which the public might find interesting, does there not?

On the wider point, I'm quite happy with there being reporting restrictions generally. Identities of the victims in certain criminal cases are protected, and I would not want to see the press being able to circumvent that. Vulnerable litigants will be anonymised in the civil arena. Should the press be allowed to name the brain damaged child just awarded £15m for a birth injury? Of course not. Similarly, juries will be shown graphic, intimate photographic and medical evidence of injuries suffered by victims of crime or some other disaster. For as much as the press may wish to pursue profit by publishing these images (always under the guise of ensuring we live in a free society of course), I am quite happy that they are prevented from doing so.

The press (I exclude you here, Michael) would do well to get its own house in order in terms of privacy and fair reporting, before seeking to protect the liberties of England, or however they would describe this sort of application. Applications of this nature seem to me speculative and scoop/profit driven, rather than something noble and altruistic.