Trial by Media

Britain’s obsession and morbid fascination with the gory details of a crime can mean that even before a suspect gets to court, their guilt is determined.

In a sensationalist society where the tabloids print every minute detail about a suspect, including pictures and addresses, is a fair trial possible? Worse still, for those innocents presumed guilty, can life return to normal?

The Ipswich Murders and the following investigation during December of last year provided the media with much fuel for speculation and drama. Exciting, and some might say glorifying, nick-names were given to the murderer, ranging from the ‘Suffolk Strangler’ to the ‘Red Light Ripper’, lending a soap-opera-esque element to the proceedings and turning them into a spectacle. Even though there were no charges until the 21st December, the media had already published the intimate details of two men that had been arrested. Almost certainly, at least one of these two men is innocent, yet the media seemingly felt no qualms about the intrusion into their private lives.

But is it all the media’s fault? We come to the question of whether the public want these details, and whether we are all as culpable as the outlets that print them. It may be assumed that it is only the tabloids that are rife with this information, but this is far from true. Broadsheet newspapers published the name of Tom Stephens, who was later released on police bail and has faced no charges. It is not as if the reader can make a sensible choice over which newspaper to buy in order to avoid this type of story; they exist in almost every newspaper; on the other hand, we can choose to switch off the television or not seek out information on the internet.

The internet is arguably one of the guiltiest culprits in this proliferation of information. Virtually as soon as Tom Stephens was arrested, details of his MySpace profile became available and were inundated by curious members of the public determined to get an insight into the mind of the bizarre loner they had heard and read so much about. Fascination became so intense that MySpace eventually had to take down Stephens’ profile. Although it was the newspapers that had printed the details of the address, it was members of the public that took it upon themselves to check it out.

Stephens was treated by certain sectors of the press as somewhat of a celebrity, with interviews appearing in the Sunday Mirror as well as a controversial audio interview aired by the BBC. The interview had been conducted on the basis that it would be used as background research and not for broadcast. The decision to broadcast the interview led some commentators to suggest that this could only encourage speculation and ultimately an unfair trial.

It is easy to forget that Tom Stephens was eventually released on bail, and faced no charges. For a few days, for all intents and purposes, Stephens had been tried and convicted by the media and was therefore fair game – a target for a media feeding frenzy. After such an overstepping of the mark, one might think that the media would be slightly more cautious upon the arrest of second suspect, Stephen Wright. This was far from the case, however, as details of his personal life, including his preference for cross-dressing were highlighted in the press. Even more disturbingly, in a desperate rush to reveal details about Wright, the Daily Mail published a picture which turned out to be a different man, who was completely innocent.

Even more seriously, publishing details like this are likely to violate the 1981 Contempt of Court Act. This states that once an arrest is made, a case is active and no information should be published which could prejudice the jury against the defendant. Any member of the public who reads newspapers or watches television news may find it impossible to be completely unbiased and would therefore be an unsuitable jury member. The court can then decide that a fair trial is impossible. The media in their scrutiny could be playing with an entire judiciary system.

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has issued guidance for the press in relation to the publication of such information and has asked “all parties to show restraint in their reporting”. Many would argue, however, that a large section of the media has already contravened the Act and Lord Goldsmith should act accordingly. Others have commented that the slowness of the British legal system means that the trials of most prominent cases don’t reach court for over a year, by which time much of the coverage will have been forgotten.

Although the outcome of the court case is yet to be known, what can be certain is that life for Tom Stevens will never return to normal. Forever to be branded as an outsider, he will find life difficult and getting a job near impossible. One thing is also clear: the media will not learn. As long as the newspapers keep selling copy, sensationalism will be victorious and criminals will continue to be tried by the media.

So long as there is a culpable victim for the media to manipulate there will be this kind of intrusion. Interestingly, in other European countries naming and shaming a defendant wouldn’t happen and so is perhaps symptomatic of a society obsessed with delving into the privacy of anyone and everyone, a need to search for a scapegoat and the cult of guilty until proven innocent.