Tag Archives: English law

NUJ general secretary calls on coroner to allow blogger into court

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has called upon the Isle of Wight coroner to allow a banned blogger into his court.

As we reported yesterday, Simon Perry of the VentnorBlog – a site that has been publishing local news for over four years – was refused entry, both as a journalist or a member of the public, to the Isle of Wight coroner’s court on Tuesday (23 February).  Perry has been a member of the NUJ for over nine years.

While parts of a small number of inquests may be held in private for reasons of national security, in this instance the hearing was public – and the local newspaper journalist was allowed to stay.

NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear has written to the Isle of Wight coroner’s office expressing “grave concern” at the decision to ban Simon Perry, Journalism.co.uk has learned.

“The principle of open justice is vital to any democracy,” said Jeremy Dear. “Any journalist will tell you that the right of the public to know what happens in a coroner’s court is fundamental to a free society.

“I’m glad that Simon Perry regards this serious incident as a matter for his union, the NUJ. We will certainly pursue the issue vigorously.”

Over nine years of NUJ membership “would surely point to me not being fly by night,” Perry told Journalism.co.uk yesterday.

When Journalism.co.uk contacted the coroner’s court yesterday, the official did not wish to comment, but confirmed that the Coroner had made a statement once VentnorBlog had left the room.

The Ministry of Justice guide to coroner and inquests says (available via this link):

All inquests must be held in public in accordance with the principle of open justice, and so members of the public and journalists have the right to, and indeed may, attend (although parts of a very small number of inquests may be held in private for national security reasons). Whether journalists attend a particular inquest – and whether they report on it – is a matter for them. If any such report is fair and accurate it cannot be used to sue for defamation.

Police visit blogger: a new use of the 1997 Harassment Act?

As noted here earlier this week, blogger Joseph Weissman has been reported to the police for ‘harassment’, after maintaining a website dedicated to scrutinising a Church of England vicar.

Rev Stephen Sizer, of the parish of Virginia Water, lodged a complaint about the site and its author was visited by the West Yorkshire police. The police report states that officers “had a word”, and as a result Weissman “voluntarily removed the blog concerned”.

Rev Sizer is a well-known, published critic of the State of Israel and of “Christian Zionism”. There are legal, religious and political aspects to the story; and related posts are being summarised and collated at Modernity Blog.

This is the short police statement given to Index on Censorship:

As a result of a report of harassment, which was referred to us by Surrey Police, two officers from West Yorkshire Police visited the author of the blog concerned. The feelings of the complainant were relayed to the author who voluntarily removed the blog. No formal action was taken.

Harassment is defined in English Law by the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act :

Harassment of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress; and a course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

In a case of ‘harassment via Facebook’ two years ago, Michael Hurst was brought to trial for allegedly contacting his ex-girlfriend Sophie Sladden online, but he was cleared by Magistrates in Birmingham after the prosecution failed to prove the charge.

The definition of harassment above is deliberately wide-ranging, as it was introduced with the main aim of facilitating action in cases of domestic harassment. Is this law being used appropriately?

For the media and for bloggers, a harassment complaint in circumstances where there has been no documented physical threat or alleged ‘stalking’ incident is worrying.

The police have approached the Weissman’s university and spoken to the head of ICT.

Weissman deleted his website without any formal charges being brought, an action which a professional journalist may not have taken without at least obtaining legal advice. As non-professional and independent reporters develop a more significant place in the media, how do we ensure that their position is not compromised, and what responsibilities should they take on in return?

And, finally, is this an acceptable application of the 1997 Harassment Act?