Newsreader Script Voice Piece
Teenagers texting whilst driving has caused numerous accidents over the past years leading to investigations into whether younger drivers should be allowed on the roads.
Our reporters Rebecca Lavin and Christopher Donaldson are Live from South Downs College reviewing the highly discussed issue of teenagers texting whilst behind the wheel.
Cut: Donaldson1
Dur: 40 Secs
Out: Lavin1
Reporters Voice Piece
Chris: Hello, welcome to South Downs News.
Rebecca: We are here today reporting live from South Downs College, discussing the topic of teenagers texting whilst driving.
Chris: 33% of deaths among 13 to 19-year-olds in 2010 occurred in motor vehicle crashes.
Rebecca: This is a terrifying statistic which is why change must begin as soon as possible.
Chris: We are now here joined with Charlotte, a 17 year old student who's recently passed her driving test.
Rebecca: Whats your thoughts on teenagers who text whilst driving?
Charlotte: I think texting whilst driving isn't good and I would never personally do it. I understand sometimes if its an emergency and you have to reply straightaway than its acceptable to text and drive, but if people just do it for the sake of it then I don't agree.
Chris: If you were in a vehicle with somebody who was texting would you intervene?
Charlotte: Yeah I would try to stop them as they are putting my life and others in danger. If it was say in a traffic jam where we wouldn't be moving for a while then I would maybe not intervene but if I thought I was in danger I'd definitely speak up.
Rebecca: Only 44% of teens said they would definitely speak up if someone were driving in a way that scared them.
Chris: Talking on a cell phone can double the likelihood of an accident as well as slow a young driver’s reaction time down to that of a 70-year-old.
Chris: Teen drivers with involved parents are twice as likely to wear seat belts.
Rebecca: Only 44% of teens said they would definitely speak up if someone were driving in a way that scared them.
Chris: Statistics show that 17 and 18-year-old driver death rates increase with each additional passenger.
Rebecca: I hope you have found this to be helpful and informative.
Chris: So next time you debate texting whilst driving, just remember your putting your life and others in danger.
Chris: And this has been Chris and Lucy reporting for South Downs News.
Rebecca: Thank you for watching, back to the studio.
Vox Pop
(News readers asks the question 'whats your thoughts on teenagers texting whilst driving?')
Vox Pop Response:
I think texting and driving is bad and anybody who considers doing it should be ashamed. I would never personally do it as I think it puts peoples lives in danger. Being safe on the roads is way more important than answering a phone call or text.
(News readers asks the question 'If you were in a vehicle with somebody who was texting would you intervene?)
Vox Pop Response:
I personally would definitely intervene as its my life at risk just as much as the drivers and other people on the road. I have never been in a car where someone has texted and drove but if I did I would feel like its my right to say something so I would.
(News reader asks the question 'Would you ever text whilst driving?')
Vox Pop Response:
No I wouldn't think about doing that. Its stupid and unneeded, answering a call or text should not be peoples main priority whilst driving. I've just recently passed my test and I'm already scared of other drivers on the road purely for the fact of things like texting whilst driving, I just think people shouldn't do it.
Final Radio Vox Pop Piece
This is the final finished version of our radio vox pop piece, we edited it through Adobe Audition, the changes we made were are as follows; cropping and cutting certain sections, replacing parts with different recordings and manipulating certain responses to fit within the style of a vox pop. After we changed the recording to an MP3 we uploaded it via Chirbit.
Check this out on Chirbit
Evaluation
The story I was assigned to do was about teenager’s texting whilst driving, this story has a lot of news value as it effects a large majority of society. A lot of people drive or are aware of people that do, so the thought of a generation putting people’s lives at risk would grab attention and be engaging. I was pleased with the story I was given as I felt I could create a news story and radio vox pop piece to a great standard with such a in depth story. The target audience for ‘teenager’s texting whilst driving’ specifically relates to teenagers it also relates to near enough everyone from people who drive, passengers in vehicles to people who are learning to drive. This is also a story which people would find interesting and want to hear more about as it does relate to such a wide variety of audiences. This story being about teenagers would firstly draw attention to teens but also parents and grandparents, older people who do reservations about young drivers as they are constantly stereotyped as being 'bad' drivers. This story appeals the audience for the simple fact it effects a wide variety of people and is a serious matter as texting whilst driving is illegal and puts people’s lives in danger.
I have demonstrated a variety of professional practice within my film and radio piece. To start with my filming assignment reflects professionalism as I used a mixture of different and expert angles like cut away shots, long distance shots and close ups. I also made sure the actors and actresses I decided to use for the filming were the best I could find, I wanted the news film to be as professional as possible which is why I choose actors and actress who were up to that standard and what I wanted to represent our news programme. Another example of how my film treatment reflects professional practice is the script. Throughout this assignment I researched a variety of different news programmes and looked into how the way news reporters speak, what they say etc. and due to this made sure the script reflected that. I used the conventional aspect of the news reporters introducing themselves and addressing what location they are at so it related to a traditional style news report. Some examples of how I established professional practice in my radio assignment are as follows; when collecting vox pops, I looked into different ones through research (Radio 1 News, BBC News ect.) All of the vox pops I listened to all stuck to a similar style of clear voices, lack of background sound and short answers, due to this I decided to make sure my vox pops were to a similar theme. When doing vox pops I was sure to do them in areas which weren’t surrounded by a lot of background sounds and asked questions which were recognizable and allowed the person to give a detailed answer. The voice piece in my radio assignment also demonstrated professional practice because the voice was clear and understandable. The way the voice piece and vox pops were edited also showed professionalism as personally I feel it sounds similar to ones you would hear on the radio.
A lot of the places where I sourced my information for both my radio and television assignment were from the Internet. After I discovered the story I was assigned to I straight away started researching facts and figures, information and incidents which may have appeared in the public eye which involves not just teenagers but people in general texting whilst driving. I found a lot of facts and figures such as 33% of deaths among 13 to 19-year-olds in 2010 occurred in motor vehicle crashes and 56% of teens said they talk on the phone while driving on a website called ‘No Texting Whilst Driving’.
A feel I have a lot of strengths as well as some weaknesses in both of my television and radio assignments. The strengths I have in my television assignment are as follows; as an overview I’m pleased with how my news film has ended up as it’s demonstrated the style of a professional news programmes. The whole film I feel was finished to a high standard as I used different, good quality shots, a couple of good actors/actresses and a script which displays effectiveness. The weaknesses in this news programme is maybe the lack of interviews within. I only used on particular person who got asked questions by the news reporters. So if I was to complete this assignment again I would make sure I had arranged an interview with another person who maybe would be more significant to the story like a policeman or someone who has been involved in a car accident but specifically when someone was on their phone. The strengths in my radio assignment are I feel that my audio piece was to a professional and good quality standard. I enjoyed researching different audio on the radio and due to this I feel this is why the vox pop and voice piece I created relates to it and does sound strikingly similar. My vox pops in particular I’m impressed with as I feel they are clear, understandable and relate to the style of radio vox pops. One weakness I felt I had with this radio assignment is although I was happy with my vox pops if I was to do the task again I would ask a more variety of questions to get a different response.
Monday, 18 May 2015
Thursday, 26 February 2015
Radio News Practice
Task 1:
Look at the following story from Hampshire Police
• What are the 5 W’s ?
• Is any part of this story opinion?
• Write this story into a piece of copy as close to 90 words long as possible, aiming to use the 3 C’s and 5 W’s
1. Who
2. Where
3. When
4. Why
5. What
Police are investigating a report of an assault on a woman with learning difficulties in Southsea on Christmas Day.
The 25-year-old, who has a rare genetic condition called Williams syndrome, was walking along St. Andrews Road near Hudson Road at around 5.20pm on Sunday, December 25, 2011 when she was approached by a group of boys.
It’s alleged the boys verbally abused and threatened her before assaulting this woman and her pet cat, which was following her.
The woman received slight bruising to her face, and was left frightened and distressed by these events. She went back to her flat and locked herself in shortly after the assault, which was later reported to the police by her family.
The group of boys were described as being aged between 12 and 15. They were riding a number of micro-scooters and one bicycle. One of the boys was wearing blue jeans and a blue top with the hood up.
A Hampshire Constabulary spokesman said: "These were cruel and despicable actions towards a vulnerable woman who is usually trusting of people as she tries to lead an independent life.
"On Christmas Day evening, this woman wanted to prove her independence by walking from her flat to her mother’s address nearby for the first time in the dark. It’s believed that the group of boys targeted this woman because of her appearance and the way she walks, which is as a result of challenges with her co-ordination.
"We are appealing for witnesses to this assault in St. Andrews Road on Christmas Day or anyone with information about the identities of the youth suspects."
People with information are asked to contact Southsea police station by phoning 101. Mini-com users can phone 01962 875000. Information can be given anonymously by phoning the independent Crimestoppers charity on 0800 555 111.
Look at the following story from Hampshire Police
• What are the 5 W’s ?
• Is any part of this story opinion?
• Write this story into a piece of copy as close to 90 words long as possible, aiming to use the 3 C’s and 5 W’s
1. Who
2. Where
3. When
4. Why
5. What
Police are investigating a report of an assault on a woman with learning difficulties in Southsea on Christmas Day.
The 25-year-old, who has a rare genetic condition called Williams syndrome, was walking along St. Andrews Road near Hudson Road at around 5.20pm on Sunday, December 25, 2011 when she was approached by a group of boys.
It’s alleged the boys verbally abused and threatened her before assaulting this woman and her pet cat, which was following her.
The woman received slight bruising to her face, and was left frightened and distressed by these events. She went back to her flat and locked herself in shortly after the assault, which was later reported to the police by her family.
The group of boys were described as being aged between 12 and 15. They were riding a number of micro-scooters and one bicycle. One of the boys was wearing blue jeans and a blue top with the hood up.
A Hampshire Constabulary spokesman said: "These were cruel and despicable actions towards a vulnerable woman who is usually trusting of people as she tries to lead an independent life.
"On Christmas Day evening, this woman wanted to prove her independence by walking from her flat to her mother’s address nearby for the first time in the dark. It’s believed that the group of boys targeted this woman because of her appearance and the way she walks, which is as a result of challenges with her co-ordination.
"We are appealing for witnesses to this assault in St. Andrews Road on Christmas Day or anyone with information about the identities of the youth suspects."
People with information are asked to contact Southsea police station by phoning 101. Mini-com users can phone 01962 875000. Information can be given anonymously by phoning the independent Crimestoppers charity on 0800 555 111.
1. Who - 25 year old with Williams syndrome.
2. Where - St. Andrews Road near Hudson Road.
3. When - 5.20pm on Sunday, 25th December 2011.
4. Why - Woman wanted to prove her independence by walking from her flat to her mother’s address nearby for the first time in the dark.
5. What -Verbally abused and threatened her before assaulting this woman and her pet cat.
Tuesday, 3 February 2015
Assignment Two - Law
Assignment two - Law
Journalism laws will always be important in today’s society but specifically due to the digital age. Since the developments of technology including the use of online articles rather than articles only being printed on newspapers and magazines and the rise of social media giving people the platform to say pretty much whatever they want to a wider audience. In the digital age where people publish a lot more online moves away from the more known areas of law like defamation, libel, contempt of court and privilege and a creates a whole new world of law in journalism.
Defamation is a law which allows individuals, groups of individuals, firms or companies to sue when there reputation is being damaged. Someone can be defamed when material is published in various forms which isn’t truthful or portrays the accused in a bad light. People can sue so long as the material can be reasonably understood to be referring to them. Something is defamatory if it lowers the accused in in the estimation of right-thinking members of the public and/or causes them to be shunned or avoided. Defamatory also is when it disparages them in their office, trade or profession and/or exposes them to hatred ridicule or contempt. The Defamation Act 2013 which came into effect in England and Wales on the 1st of January 2013 has since made several changes. Under the new law claimants have to show that the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, ‘serious harm’ to their reputation. If the claimant is a body that trades for profit, such as a company, serious harm is defined as ‘serious financial losses. It is up to the courts to decide how they interpret “serious harm” in individual cases.
The UK Defamation Act 1996, exists to protect the reputation and good standing of an individual. In order to pursue a successful defamation suit the claimant must: prove that they have a reputation which can be damaged and be able to show that their reputation has been damaged. The 1996 version of the act was replaced by the 2013 version which changed a number of Defamation procedures. All defamation cases under the Senior Courts Act 1981 in the Queen’s Bench Division, and the County Courts Act 1984, which were “tried with a jury”, unless the trial requires prolonged examination of documents &c, are now “tried without a jury” unless the court orders otherwise. Such cases are referred through a Defamation Recognition Commission (DRC) to a new Independent Regulatory Board (IRB), to provide arbitration services. The Courts should take into account, when awarding costs and damages, whether either party in a dispute has chosen not to use the arbitration service. A successful party is required to pay all of the proceedings costs, if such a party unreasonably refused to use the arbitration service. Judgment awards of exemplary damages, where a defendant is guilty of breach of a defendant’s rights, can take into account whether either party refused to use, or join the arbitration service. Courts should take into account whether defendant first sought advice from the IRB before publication. It was changed to give a better protection to people expressing their opinions are to come into force in England and Wales.
There are many ways in which someone can be defamed and in various forms. Some of them include through newspapers, magazines and other printed media, radio and television broadcasting, email and through the web which includes social media, blogging sites and online forums. You can be put at risk of defaming someone even if you repeat defamatory comments previously made or published by others, for example if you quote a defamatory comment on social media. However the claimant would need to have evidential proof that the defamatory material is aimed at them even if they aren’t specifically named. Some of the defences have been amended by the latest legislation, which includes the following; the person who publishes the comments must prove what is said is true. The opinions must be completely factual and genuine as well as how much the publication is public interest.
An example of a libel case which involves defamation is the Frankie Boyle case. The sweary comic won £54,650 in damages after a High Court jury found that the Daily Mirror had libelled him by calling him a “racist comedian”. This is a strong case of defamation as the famous newspaper completely tarnished the comedians identity as being accused of racism is an extremely serious thing. Contempt of Court is a phrase which covers a wide variety of conduct which undermines or has the potential to undermine the course of justice, and the procedures which are designed to deal with them. The Law Commission’s consultation paper on contempt of court was published in November 2012 focuses on a number of areas which are as follows. Contempt by publication is based around the balance the right of a defendant to a fair trial with the right of the publisher to freedom of expression. There are also concerns that the procedures for dealing with this form of contempt may not be as fair and efficient as possible. The impact of the new media also relates to Contempt of Court which is contained in the 1981 Act, as the act pre-dates the internet and the concerns that the current law cannot adequately deal with contempt’s committed through the new media. Contempt’s committed by jurors relates to the need to ensure that the laws and procedures strike a balance between the public interest in the administration of justice, the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the rights of the jurors concerned.
Reporting restrictions is under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Reporting restrictions exist reports of committal proceedings, preparatory hearings (Crown Court) in serious fraud cases, divorce and matrimonial cases and certain sex cases. Courts also have power to order the postponement of the reporting of a case while there is danger of it causing prejudice, usually when people are tried separately on charges arising from the same incident or where the accused is also a defendant in other proceedings. The restrictions do not apply if the accused person applies to have them lifted, the magistrates decide not to commit, or the court decides to deal with the case summarily. If the court commits some people and tries others summarily, evidence relevant to those dealt with summarily may be reported. If one or more of the accused wants the restrictions lifted and others want them to stay, the court gives a ruling. Reports from divorce courts and magistrates' court matrimonial hearings may contain only names, addresses and occupations of the parties and witnesses, a concise statement of the charges, defence and counter-charges on which evidence has been given, submissions and decisions on points of law, the judgment and any observations of the court. Even when there is no legal prohibition, complainants in other sex cases should be identified only after reference to the news desk or senior production staff.
Following the sentencing of Venables over child pornography charges, Mr Justice Bean reiterated the view of the courts that revealing his new identity risked endangering his life. But some media groups argued the reporting restrictions were draconian and an affront to the principle of open justice. The judge did relax reporting restrictions on naming the region, Cheshire, where Venables lived at the time he was recalled to prison in March this year, as well as the probation service that was supervising him. But Mr Justice Bean reiterated that the reporting restrictions to protect Venables' new identity, his address before he was recalled to prison, his whereabouts now, and his appearance, still stand and are permanent. Reporting restrictions have been in place ever since Venables and Robert Thompson, who were convicted for the murder of James Bulger, were released on license with new identities in 2001. At that time, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss granted a high court injunction to prevent publication of their new identities on the basis that there was a real possibility of serious physical harm or death from vengeful members of the public. Revealing the identity of the James Bulger murderers was done because of how high the public interest was because considering the case was about a child being killed which effects the whole of the public as one it was a murder but two it was of a child which puts other children at risk considering it could have been a serial child killer involved. The identity’s was also revealed as Venables and Thompson was criminals which means there privacy should be invaded as the crime they committed was so strong and shocking that they lost all rights to privacy protection after they committed the crime.
Strict liability is a standard for liability, which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by her or his acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of men’s rea). Strict liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporation’s law, and criminal law. In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortuous intent. The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behaviour and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases.
A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation centre. No matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs. In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defence of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defence may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs. If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred, additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions.
An example of Contempt of Court is the Robert Murat case. Four national newspaper groups have today apologized for publishing false allegations about Robert Murat and two other people over claims they were involved in the abduction of Madeleine McCann, and agreed to pay £600,000 in libel damages. In a statement read out in the high court, News International, Mirror Group Newspapers, Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers apologized to Murat, an official suspect in the McCann case, and two others, and acknowledged making "false claims" about them. Eleven daily and Sunday titles published by the four groups are expected to run apologies to Murat. In total, it is understood that the four newspaper groups will pay out at least £800,000 in damages: £600,000 to Murat and six-figure sums to the two other claimants. The apologies and damages were claimed from Express Newspapers titles the Daily Express, Sunday Express and Daily Star; Associated's Daily Mail, London Evening Standard and Metro; MGN's Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Daily Record; and News International's Sun and News of the World. The court heard that the papers have in excess of 15 million readers and that between them almost 100 articles were written mentioning either Murat or the two other claimants, Sergey Malinka and Mikala Walczuch. I think the outcome was right as the newspapers published false allegations regarding innocent people which can damage their reputations which is why they should have been punished for their actions. The outcome I feel was reasonable and justified as the newspapers who published the stories at the time made a lot of money out of it which is why it was only right to reward the victims with a money based reward.
Social media has a huge impact on law in journalism as the ever changing development of technology has caused the rise of citizen journalists. Citizen journalists is based upon public citizens playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analysing, and disseminating news and information. Social media site Twitter has specifically caused an impact on the legal side of journalism. The overwhelming public in the Stephen Lawrence murder trial which involved social media reporting. The trial opened with an application by the prosecution to ban the use of social media out of fear of prejudicial commentary. The following morning, after a BBC challenge, the judge accepted that Twitter was not a means for journalists to comment but a means to report court cases as they happen, informing both the public and their colleagues in the newsroom. When it came to the verdicts and sentencing of Stephen Lawrence’s murderers, the interest on Twitter was phenomenal. During the sentencing, all who were reporting the trial saw new followers flocking to find out more. Each of the feeds also played a wider role, with live broadcasters relaying the tweets to TV and radio audiences - and websites such as the BBC and the Guardian integrating tweets into live pages.
R v Paul Chambers appealed to the High Court as Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions or better known as the Twitter Joke Trial, was a United Kingdom legal case centred on the conviction of a man under the Communications Act 2003 for sending a "menacing" message via Twitter. The conviction was widely condemned as a miscarriage of justice and was appealed three times, succeeding on the third attempt. This trial is an example of how social media has had such a big impact on law in journalism. The case started during late December 2009 and early January 2010 as the cold weather caused many airplane flights to be cancelled, due to this 28 year old Paul Chambers tweeted ‘Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!’. The airport management considered the message to be "not credible" as a threat but contacted the police anyway. Paul Chambers further was arrested by anti-terror police at his office, his house was searched and his mobile phone, laptop and desktop hard drive were confiscated. He was later charged with "sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003". On 10 May, he was found guilty at Doncaster magistrates court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs, further more he lost his job as a consequence.
Bibliography
• 7 laws journalists now need to know - from database rights to hate speech
• URL: http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2012/11/22/7-laws-journalists-now-need-to-know-from-database-rights-to-hate-speech/
• Page Title: 7 laws journalists now need to know - from database rights to hate speech
• Website Title: Online Journalism Blog
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2012
• Author: Paul Bradshaw
• BBC Academy - Journalism – Defamation
• URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133651
• Page Title: BBC Academy - Journalism – Defamation
• Website Title: Bbc.co.uk
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2012
• Author:
• The Frankie Boyle libel case – an example of how race has replaced sex as the No1 taboo – Telegraph Blogs
• URL: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100186104/the-frankie-boyle-libel-case-an-example-of-how-race-has-replaced-sex-as-the-no1-taboo/
• Page Title: The Frankie Boyle libel case – an example of how race has replaced sex as the No1 taboo – Telegraph Blogs
• Website Title: Telegraph Blogs
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2013
• Author: Ed West
• Twitter users: A guide to the law
• URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257
• Page Title: Twitter users: A guide to the law
• Website Title: BBC News
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2013
• Author:
• Contempt of Court - Law Commission
• URL: http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/contempt.htm
• Page Title: Contempt of Court - Law Commission
• Website Title: Lawcommission.justice.gov.uk
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2015
• Author:
• Social media and the law: a case to regulate or educate?
• URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/collegeofjournalism/entries/81cc6ff0-6df2-35e9-a88c-dfe2dc8b31b
• Page Title: Social media and the law: a case to regulate or educate?
• Website Title: College of Journalism
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2013
• Author:
• Twitter Joke Trial
• URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial
• Page Title: Twitter Joke Trial
• Website Title: Wikipedia
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2015
• Author:
• Former Madeleine suspect Robert Murat arrives for questioning
• URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2871343/Former-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Robert-Murat-arrives-Algarve-police-station-questioning-Met-detectives.html
• Page Title: Former Madeleine suspect Robert Murat arrives for questioning
• Website Title: Daily Mail Online
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2014
• Author:
• Reporting Restrictions
• URL: http://www.societyofeditors.co.uk/userfiles/file/ReportingRestrictions
• Page Title: Reporting Restictions
• Website Title: Society of Editors
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2014
• Author:
• Contempt of Court Act 1981
• URL: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/crossheading/strict-liability
• Page Title: Contempt of Court Act 1981
• Website Title: Legislation.gov.uk
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2014
• Author:
• Jon Venables case: the legal arguments
• URL: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jul/23/jon-venables-case-legal-arguments
• Page Title: Jon Venables case: the legal arguments
• Website Title: the Guardian
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2010
• Author: Natalie Hanman
Journalism laws will always be important in today’s society but specifically due to the digital age. Since the developments of technology including the use of online articles rather than articles only being printed on newspapers and magazines and the rise of social media giving people the platform to say pretty much whatever they want to a wider audience. In the digital age where people publish a lot more online moves away from the more known areas of law like defamation, libel, contempt of court and privilege and a creates a whole new world of law in journalism.
The UK Defamation Act 1996, exists to protect the reputation and good standing of an individual. In order to pursue a successful defamation suit the claimant must: prove that they have a reputation which can be damaged and be able to show that their reputation has been damaged. The 1996 version of the act was replaced by the 2013 version which changed a number of Defamation procedures. All defamation cases under the Senior Courts Act 1981 in the Queen’s Bench Division, and the County Courts Act 1984, which were “tried with a jury”, unless the trial requires prolonged examination of documents &c, are now “tried without a jury” unless the court orders otherwise. Such cases are referred through a Defamation Recognition Commission (DRC) to a new Independent Regulatory Board (IRB), to provide arbitration services. The Courts should take into account, when awarding costs and damages, whether either party in a dispute has chosen not to use the arbitration service. A successful party is required to pay all of the proceedings costs, if such a party unreasonably refused to use the arbitration service. Judgment awards of exemplary damages, where a defendant is guilty of breach of a defendant’s rights, can take into account whether either party refused to use, or join the arbitration service. Courts should take into account whether defendant first sought advice from the IRB before publication. It was changed to give a better protection to people expressing their opinions are to come into force in England and Wales.There are many ways in which someone can be defamed and in various forms. Some of them include through newspapers, magazines and other printed media, radio and television broadcasting, email and through the web which includes social media, blogging sites and online forums. You can be put at risk of defaming someone even if you repeat defamatory comments previously made or published by others, for example if you quote a defamatory comment on social media. However the claimant would need to have evidential proof that the defamatory material is aimed at them even if they aren’t specifically named. Some of the defences have been amended by the latest legislation, which includes the following; the person who publishes the comments must prove what is said is true. The opinions must be completely factual and genuine as well as how much the publication is public interest.
Strict liability is a standard for liability, which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by her or his acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of men’s rea). Strict liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporation’s law, and criminal law. In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortuous intent. The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behaviour and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases.
A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation centre. No matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs. In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defence of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defence may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs. If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred, additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions.
Social media has a huge impact on law in journalism as the ever changing development of technology has caused the rise of citizen journalists. Citizen journalists is based upon public citizens playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analysing, and disseminating news and information. Social media site Twitter has specifically caused an impact on the legal side of journalism. The overwhelming public in the Stephen Lawrence murder trial which involved social media reporting. The trial opened with an application by the prosecution to ban the use of social media out of fear of prejudicial commentary. The following morning, after a BBC challenge, the judge accepted that Twitter was not a means for journalists to comment but a means to report court cases as they happen, informing both the public and their colleagues in the newsroom. When it came to the verdicts and sentencing of Stephen Lawrence’s murderers, the interest on Twitter was phenomenal. During the sentencing, all who were reporting the trial saw new followers flocking to find out more. Each of the feeds also played a wider role, with live broadcasters relaying the tweets to TV and radio audiences - and websites such as the BBC and the Guardian integrating tweets into live pages.
Bibliography
• 7 laws journalists now need to know - from database rights to hate speech
• URL: http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2012/11/22/7-laws-journalists-now-need-to-know-from-database-rights-to-hate-speech/
• Page Title: 7 laws journalists now need to know - from database rights to hate speech
• Website Title: Online Journalism Blog
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2012
• Author: Paul Bradshaw
• BBC Academy - Journalism – Defamation
• URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133651
• Page Title: BBC Academy - Journalism – Defamation
• Website Title: Bbc.co.uk
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2012
• Author:
• The Frankie Boyle libel case – an example of how race has replaced sex as the No1 taboo – Telegraph Blogs
• URL: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100186104/the-frankie-boyle-libel-case-an-example-of-how-race-has-replaced-sex-as-the-no1-taboo/
• Page Title: The Frankie Boyle libel case – an example of how race has replaced sex as the No1 taboo – Telegraph Blogs
• Website Title: Telegraph Blogs
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2013
• Author: Ed West
• Twitter users: A guide to the law
• URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257
• Page Title: Twitter users: A guide to the law
• Website Title: BBC News
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2013
• Author:
• Contempt of Court - Law Commission
• URL: http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/contempt.htm
• Page Title: Contempt of Court - Law Commission
• Website Title: Lawcommission.justice.gov.uk
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2015
• Author:
• Social media and the law: a case to regulate or educate?
• URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/collegeofjournalism/entries/81cc6ff0-6df2-35e9-a88c-dfe2dc8b31b
• Page Title: Social media and the law: a case to regulate or educate?
• Website Title: College of Journalism
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2013
• Author:
• Twitter Joke Trial
• URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial
• Page Title: Twitter Joke Trial
• Website Title: Wikipedia
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2015
• Author:
• Former Madeleine suspect Robert Murat arrives for questioning
• URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2871343/Former-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Robert-Murat-arrives-Algarve-police-station-questioning-Met-detectives.html
• Page Title: Former Madeleine suspect Robert Murat arrives for questioning
• Website Title: Daily Mail Online
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2014
• Author:
• Reporting Restrictions
• URL: http://www.societyofeditors.co.uk/userfiles/file/ReportingRestrictions
• Page Title: Reporting Restictions
• Website Title: Society of Editors
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2014
• Author:
• Contempt of Court Act 1981
• URL: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/crossheading/strict-liability
• Page Title: Contempt of Court Act 1981
• Website Title: Legislation.gov.uk
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2014
• Author:
• Jon Venables case: the legal arguments
• URL: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jul/23/jon-venables-case-legal-arguments
• Page Title: Jon Venables case: the legal arguments
• Website Title: the Guardian
• Access Date: 03/02/15
• Year Published: 2010
• Author: Natalie Hanman
Thursday, 29 January 2015
Reporting Restrictions
Why do reporting restrictions exist and what do they cover?
Section 39 is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 of General Provisions as to Proceedings in Court.The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It consolidated all existing child protection legislation for England and Wales into one act. It was preceded by the Children and Young Persons Act 1920 and the Children Act 1908. It is modified by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and the Children and Young Persons Act 2008. Sections 39 and 49 are used to protect the identity of children and young people who appear in court as witnesses, victims and suspects. Journalists may not give the following about the accused: name, address, school, still or moving image and any particulars likely to lead to the identification of any person aged under 18 concerned in the proceedings.
What restrictions cover elections – when does the election period start ahead of this years General Election?
What is the age of criminal responsibility in the UK?
The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old. This means that children under 10 can’t be arrested or charged with a crime. There are other punishments that can be given to children under 10 who break the law. Children between 10 and 17 can be arrested and taken to court if they commit a crime. They are treated differently from adults and are: dealt with by youth courts,
given different sentences or sent to special secure centres for young people, not adult prisons. Young people aged 18 are treated as an adult by the law. If they’re sent to prison, they’ll be sent to a place that holds 18 to 25-year-olds, not a full adult prison.
Why did the judge lift the reporting restrictions in the case of the Bulger killers? Was this the right thing to do, back up your points.
At the close of the trial, the judge lifted reporting restrictions and allowed the names of the killers to be released, saying "I did this because the public interest overrode the interest of the defendants... There was a need for an informed public debate on crimes committed by young children." Sir David Omand later criticized this decision and outline the difficulties created by it in his 2010 review of the probation service's handling of the case. I think this was the right thing to do as the criminals did such a horrendous crime which effects the victims as well as interest for the public. Also why should the defendants be allowed to hide there identity when victims identity was open to the public.
What is Operation Yewtree? Who has their identity protected in this investigation and why?
Operation Yewtree is a controversial police investigation into sexual abuse allegations, predominantly the abuse of children, against the British media personality Jimmy Savile and others. The investigation, led by the Metropolitan Police Service, started in October 2012. After a period of assessment it became a full criminal investigation, involving inquiries into living people as well as Savile. On 19 October 2012 the Metropolitan Police reported that more than 400 lines of enquiry had been assessed and over 200 potential victims had been identified. By 19 December, eight people had been questioned; the total number of alleged victims was 589, of whom 450 alleged abuse by Savile. The report of the investigations into the activities of Savile himself was published, as Giving Victims a Voice, in January 2013. Operation Yewtree continued as an investigation into others, some but not all linked with Savile.
Operation Yewtree has been criticised as a witch-hunt, what are your thoughts on this? Give examples to back up points.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1435289/Reporting-restrictions.html
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/12/section/39
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_and_Young_Persons_Act_1933
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ersmmanual/ersm30450.htm
https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yewtree
Reporting restrictions exist reports of committal proceedings, preparatory hearings (Crown Court) in serious fraud cases, divorce and matrimonial cases and certain sex cases. Courts also have power to order the postponement of the reporting of a case while there is danger of it causing prejudice, usually when people are tried separately on charges arising from the same incident or where the accused is also a defendant in other proceedings. The restrictions do not apply if the accused person applies to have them lifted, the magistrates decide not to commit, or the court decides to deal with the case summarily. If the court commits some people and tries others summarily, evidence relevant to those dealt with summarily may be reported. If one or more of the accused wants the restrictions lifted and others want them to stay, the court gives a ruling. Reports from divorce courts and magistrates' court matrimonial hearings may contain only names, addresses and occupations of the parties and witnesses, a concise statement of the charges, defence and counter-charges on which evidence has been given, submissions and decisions on points of law, the judgment and any observations of the court. Even when there is no legal prohibition, complainants in other sex cases should be identified only after reference to the news desk or senior production staff.
What is a Section 39 Order?
Section 39 is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 of General Provisions as to Proceedings in Court.The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It consolidated all existing child protection legislation for England and Wales into one act. It was preceded by the Children and Young Persons Act 1920 and the Children Act 1908. It is modified by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and the Children and Young Persons Act 2008. Sections 39 and 49 are used to protect the identity of children and young people who appear in court as witnesses, victims and suspects. Journalists may not give the following about the accused: name, address, school, still or moving image and any particulars likely to lead to the identification of any person aged under 18 concerned in the proceedings.
What restrictions cover elections – when does the election period start ahead of this years General Election?
What is the age of criminal responsibility in the UK?
The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old. This means that children under 10 can’t be arrested or charged with a crime. There are other punishments that can be given to children under 10 who break the law. Children between 10 and 17 can be arrested and taken to court if they commit a crime. They are treated differently from adults and are: dealt with by youth courts,
given different sentences or sent to special secure centres for young people, not adult prisons. Young people aged 18 are treated as an adult by the law. If they’re sent to prison, they’ll be sent to a place that holds 18 to 25-year-olds, not a full adult prison.
Why did the judge lift the reporting restrictions in the case of the Bulger killers? Was this the right thing to do, back up your points.
At the close of the trial, the judge lifted reporting restrictions and allowed the names of the killers to be released, saying "I did this because the public interest overrode the interest of the defendants... There was a need for an informed public debate on crimes committed by young children." Sir David Omand later criticized this decision and outline the difficulties created by it in his 2010 review of the probation service's handling of the case. I think this was the right thing to do as the criminals did such a horrendous crime which effects the victims as well as interest for the public. Also why should the defendants be allowed to hide there identity when victims identity was open to the public.
What is Operation Yewtree? Who has their identity protected in this investigation and why?
Operation Yewtree is a controversial police investigation into sexual abuse allegations, predominantly the abuse of children, against the British media personality Jimmy Savile and others. The investigation, led by the Metropolitan Police Service, started in October 2012. After a period of assessment it became a full criminal investigation, involving inquiries into living people as well as Savile. On 19 October 2012 the Metropolitan Police reported that more than 400 lines of enquiry had been assessed and over 200 potential victims had been identified. By 19 December, eight people had been questioned; the total number of alleged victims was 589, of whom 450 alleged abuse by Savile. The report of the investigations into the activities of Savile himself was published, as Giving Victims a Voice, in January 2013. Operation Yewtree continued as an investigation into others, some but not all linked with Savile.
Operation Yewtree has been criticised as a witch-hunt, what are your thoughts on this? Give examples to back up points.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1435289/Reporting-restrictions.html
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/12/section/39
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_and_Young_Persons_Act_1933
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ersmmanual/ersm30450.htm
https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yewtree
Thursday, 15 January 2015
Law - Contempt of Court
Contempt of Court
Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies authority, justice, and dignity of the court. It manifests itself in willful disregard of or disrespect for the authority of a court of law, which is often behavior that is illegal because it does not obey or respect the rules of a law court. As explained in the People's Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill, "there are essentially two types of contempt: being rude, disrespectful to the judge or other attorneys or causing a disturbance in the courtroom, particularly after being warned by the judge and willful failure to obey an order of the court. Contempt proceedings are especially used to enforce equitable remedies, such as injunctions. When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue a court order that in the context of a court trial or hearing declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority, called "found" or "held in contempt"; this is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the court's normal process.
A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems. The client or person must be proven to be guilty before he/she will be punished.
Strict Liability Rule
Strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by her or his acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of mens rea). Strict liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortuous intent. The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases.
A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center. No matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs. In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs. If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred, additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions.
Contempt of Court Case
Four national newspaper groups have today apologized for publishing false allegations about Robert Murat and two other people over claims they were involved in the abduction of Madeleine McCann, and agreed to pay £600,000 in libel damages. In a statement read out in the high court, News International, Mirror Group Newspapers, Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers apologized to Murat, an official suspect in the McCann case, and two others, and acknowledged making "false claims" about them. Eleven daily and Sunday titles published by the four groups are expected to run apologies to Murat and the two others tomorrow and at the weekend.
In total, it is understood that the four newspaper groups will pay out at least £800,000 in damages: £600,000 to Murat and six-figure sums to the two other claimants. The apologies and damages were claimed from Express Newspapers titles the Daily Express, Sunday Express and Daily Star; Associated's Daily Mail, London Evening Standard and Metro; MGN's Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Daily Record; and News International's Sun and News of the World. The court heard that the papers have in excess of 15 million readers and that between them almost 100 articles were written mentioning either Murat or the two other claimants, Sergey Malinka and Mikala Walczuch.
I think the outcome was right as the newspapers published false allegations regarding innocent people which can damage there reputations which is why they should of been punished for there actions. The outcome I feel was reasonable and justified as the newspapers who published the stories at the time made a lot of money out of it which is why it was only right to reward the victims with a money based reward.
A finding of being in contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems. The client or person must be proven to be guilty before he/she will be punished.
Strict Liability Rule
Strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by her or his acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of mens rea). Strict liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortuous intent. The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behavior and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases.A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center. No matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs. In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs. If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred, additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions.
Contempt of Court Case
Four national newspaper groups have today apologized for publishing false allegations about Robert Murat and two other people over claims they were involved in the abduction of Madeleine McCann, and agreed to pay £600,000 in libel damages. In a statement read out in the high court, News International, Mirror Group Newspapers, Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers apologized to Murat, an official suspect in the McCann case, and two others, and acknowledged making "false claims" about them. Eleven daily and Sunday titles published by the four groups are expected to run apologies to Murat and the two others tomorrow and at the weekend.In total, it is understood that the four newspaper groups will pay out at least £800,000 in damages: £600,000 to Murat and six-figure sums to the two other claimants. The apologies and damages were claimed from Express Newspapers titles the Daily Express, Sunday Express and Daily Star; Associated's Daily Mail, London Evening Standard and Metro; MGN's Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Daily Record; and News International's Sun and News of the World. The court heard that the papers have in excess of 15 million readers and that between them almost 100 articles were written mentioning either Murat or the two other claimants, Sergey Malinka and Mikala Walczuch.
I think the outcome was right as the newspapers published false allegations regarding innocent people which can damage there reputations which is why they should of been punished for there actions. The outcome I feel was reasonable and justified as the newspapers who published the stories at the time made a lot of money out of it which is why it was only right to reward the victims with a money based reward.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)