Reports were 'like a hate campaign'

RHYS WILLIAMS

Newspapers are in breach of the 1981 Contempt of Court Act if they publish material that carries a "substantial risk of prejudice" to a fair trial. Lawyers said yesterday that the only risk some elements of the press considered when deciding what to publish was whether or not they would be prosecuted.

Judge Roger Sanders ruled yesterday that the reporting in national tabloids following Geoffrey Knights' arrest last Easter for assault bordered on developing into a "hate campaign".

Once Mr Knights had been charged, the Daily Mirror ran an account of the alleged incident by the supposed victim, Martin Davies. Today and the Sun also carried accounts of the alleged attack, while the Daily Mail ran an interview apparently with Gillian Taylforth about her life with Mr Knights. In it, the writer, Lynda Lee-Potter, mentioned an assault on the soap star, along with Mr Knights' previous convictions - despite the fact that Ms Taylforth was a main prosecution witness.

The Daily Express, Star and Sunday Mirror also ran pieces either about the alleged incident, the couple's stormy relationship or Mr Knights' past history. Much of this would have featured in his trial.

After granting Mr Knights his legal costs, the judge added: "I was tempted to consider making a wasted costs order against the individuals of the press I have named.

"However, I think it will deflect against the real matter ... They are in peril of far greater penalties than I can impose."

While Judge Sanders is technically correct, lawyers believe that newspapers flagrantly ignore the law's contempt of court provisions secure in the knowledge that the Attorney General will not bring proceedings.

Last year, the Taylor sisters' conviction for murder was quashed by the Court of Appeal after it decided that it would have been impossible for the jury not to have been influenced by prejudicial and inaccurate press reporting of the trial. This summer, however, the Attorney General refused to bring contempt proceedings against the newspapers concerned.

Anthony Scrivener QC, a former chairman of the Bar, said it was the Attorney General's past failure to enforce the law that had led to falling standards in the media.

"The present Attorney General, unlike his predecessors, has continually refused to take action in the clearest possible cases of contempt," he said. "This decision [in the Knights case] is a direct result of the Attorney General's inaction. If you have got an Attorney General who is determined not to antagonise the press or the media, nothing will happen and standards will continue to slip."

Mark Stephens, the solicitor who acted for the Taylor sisters, welcomed Judge Sanders' ruling as "a strong judgment by a brave judge".

He added: "If we find ourselves in a position where trials cannot go ahead, justice will not be done and guilty people will walk free ... We're now seeing a greater and greater slide towards cross-examination of evidence and issues in a case and the presumption of guilt in the body of newspaper reports and that's the problem."

Keith Mathieson, a partner at the law firm Oswald Hickson, said: "Certain tabloids seem to say 'Sod the risk to the trial, what's the risk we'll be prosecuted'."

However, Sir Derek Spencer, the Solicitor General, strongly rejected suggestions that the Attorney General had failed to uphold the law and warned the press not to try to push back the boundaries of what could be reported.

"It is absolute nonsense to say that the Attorney isn't upholding the law. If the media do feel that they can push back the boundaries of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, they are making a big mistake and they will end up in court."