Nick Robinson's BBC politics blog last night underlined the complications bloggers face when commenting on a police investigation or court case. He was writing just after the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, obtained an injunction stopping the BBC broadcasting an item about the cash for peerages investigation - see BBC news story.
This is a sensitive area. The law sets limits on what can be said about criminal investigations and proceedings in order to ensure anyone prosecuted has a fair trial. In the past, the laws of contempt of court represented a gag on free speech. Injunctions could be granted even when no legal proceedings - criminal charges or trials - were under way. In the 1970s, the Sunday Times took Britain to the European Court of Human Rights after it was found in contempt for publishing articles exposing the scandal of Thalidomide, the drug that caused deformities in babies whose mothers had taken the drug while pregnant. The case forced Britain to change its contempt laws to protect freedom of speech, while still defending the integrity of justice.
The cash for questions investigation has been controversial. It's hardly surprising: the shadow of alleged corruption hangs over the Prime Minister. Those involved have protested against dawn raids and arrests. It's absolutely right that reporting complies with the contempt laws. But the rise of the blogosphere has clouded matters. Nick Robinson has come under fire for closing his blog to comments about the injunction - and even Conservative blogger Iain Dale is moderating comments on the subject. yet you can bet that thousands of other bloggers are showing no such restraint. The internet has made it harder than ever for governments to use the contempt laws to restrict comment. But we cannot assume this is always a good thing. The principle of the law of contempt is a good one: the right to a fair trial is a crucial one, to be defended as vigorously as the right of free speech. The question is how to balance the two.
The saga raises once again Britain's failure to separate the executive (government) and the judiciary. The Attorney General is a politician, a member of the government. But he also has a judicial role and is supposed to act in the public interest. The cash for peerages case shows yet again that he cannot fulfil both roles. It's time to set the attorney general free.
Comments