Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Payment to Tony Martin was justified, says PCC

Ian Burrell,Media,Culture Correspondent
Thursday 02 October 2003 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The Press Complaints Commission ruled yesterday that the Daily Mirror was justified in paying £125,000 to the convicted killer Tony Martin for an exclusive interview on his release from prison.

The commission said Mr Martin "had a unique insight into an issue of great public concern" and the Mirror had a public interest defence in making the payment. "It was clear that what Martin had to say was of considerable importance in generating a major debate about law and order," the commission said.

Mr Martin was convicted of manslaughter after shooting Fred Barras, 16, who had broken into his farmhouse in Norfolk in 1999.The case provoked fierce public debate over the right of individuals to protect their homes.

The commission said the newspaper had not glorified or praised Mr Martin and it accepted that the Mirror did not condone his actions.

The Mirror described the ruling as an "historic moral victory". It argued that if it had not made the offer of payment "the public would have been deprived of information that was in the public interest".

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in