Media

The Court of Protection has been accused of being overly secretive. Elizabeth Cleaver examines recent cases where  the media has been allowed to attend

The new Court of Protection was set up in 2007 to take important decisions for those who lack the capacity to do so for themselves. These issues include where the patient should live, who should manage their finances and what medical treatment they should receive. Prior to 2007 the Court of Protection was part of the Office of the Public Guardian but these are now two separate bodies. It was felt that more clarity was needed concerning day to day decision-making for the most vulnerable members of our society. These decisions are of paramount importance to the patient and can be of the most private nature. Although Court of Protection cases are normally heard in private some recent cases have raised the question of publicising them.

I’m ready for my close-up: Toby Craig and Charles Hale mull over cameras in courts

The debate over cameras in courts has been rumbling on for about as long as that on goal-line technology in football. It has often seemed that the more we talk about it, the further we are from any resolution. In fact, historically, the only thing we could be sure of was that we would keep arguing about it. In a modern world of 24-hour news, smart-phone cameras and the prevalence of social media, opening up the justice system for all to see might seem a no-brainer - in New Zealand for instance, you can now stream live trials via the internet to help the winter evenings fly by - but is it? It is all too easy to paint this as a dispute between anachronistic fuddy-duddies and forward-thinking modernisers (which a Sky News led campaign has sought to do), but in reality, the issue is far more delicately balanced, even if the technology is now all available.

Siobhan Grey discusses the Gray’s Inn Seminar on press freedom and the Select Committee Report “Press Standards, Privacy and Libel”

The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into English domestic law has had a dramatic effect on the perpetual conflict between media freedom and media intrusion into private life; a conflict which is unremitting and which sometimes seems irreconcilable. The rights enshrined in art 8 (respect for private life, including reputation) and art 10 (freedom of expression, including press freedom) are of equal value, but how can a judge strike a fair balance between them? This dilemma has been given greater urgency by the technological developments that are changing the face of the media. An injunction obtained in one national court in one jurisdiction can quickly be rendered ineffective by the new virtual, stateless and unregulated chaos of information exchange, as the Twitter campaign in the recent Transfigura case revealed.