Shit. Craig Murray jailed for 'media contempt'.

[olliebean]

Did he mean first journalist in 50 years?

He means first person in 50 years to be jailed for media contempt.

[Jumblegraws]

He means first person in 50 years to be jailed for media contempt.

"Media contempt" is afaik just shorthand for "contempt of court committed by a party via media", it's not a distinct crime in and of itself, whether at common law or otherwise. And even if Cook specifically meant that Murray was convicted of contempt as a result of journalistic pursuit, that still leaves the question of why the same couldn't be said of Tommy Robinson.

[jamiefairlie]

Perhaps they mean in Scots law? Robinson was presumably done in England other a different legal system.

[Paul Calf]

"Media contempt" is afaik just shorthand for "contempt of court committed by a party via media", it's not a distinct crime in and of itself, whether at common law or otherwise. And even if Cook specifically meant that Murray was convicted of contempt as a result of journalistic pursuit, that still leaves the question of why the same couldn't be said of Tommy Robinson.

That's an easy one: Little Steven isn't a journalist.

[Jumblegraws]

That's an easy one: Little Steven isn't a journalist.

Okay, but by Cook's reckoning the judiciary shouldn't get to make that call. The ease with which you're shrugging off Waxy-Lemon's conviction without regard to any wider precedent, because you don't think what he does qualifies as journalism, is exactly the sort of apathy you lamented in your op.

[TrenterPercenter]

Hmmm I'm bit torn on the above argument; the "he isn't a journalist argument" isn't a good argument, in fact you could argue that real journalists should be more aware and therefore diligent towards prejudicing court cases or identifying protected parties in trials.

I'm bit torn because I don't think the two case however are like for like but are similar in a way.  Robinson introduced prejudicial information prior to a trial, Murray has identified witnesses post trial.

[The Ombudsman]

Hmmm I'm bit torn on the above argument; the "he isn't a journalist argument" isn't a good argument, in fact you could argue that real journalists should be more aware and therefore diligent towards prejudicing court cases or identifying protected parties in trials.

I'm bit torn because I don't think the two case however are like for like but are similar in a way.  Robinson introduced prejudicial information prior to a trial, Murray has identified witnesses post trial.

Yes, it was post-trial, but surely a court order is still in force after the finding/verdict?

[TrenterPercenter]

Yes, it was post-trial, but surely a court order is still in force after the finding/verdict?

Absolutely; my view is that if Murray has identified witnesses protected by a court order then he has committed a crime (and crime not just against these witnesses but a crimes against faith in system to protect witnesses in the future). I think the people best placed to assess this are the judiciary otherwise we are just reliant on Murrays testimony that he didn't mean to do this (this is obviously and understandably going to be biased).

I was just talking about the comparative argument above - perhaps regarding sentencing between Robinson and Murray.

[The Ombudsman]

Absolutely; my view is that if Murray has identified witnesses protected by a court order then he has committed a crime (and crime not just against these witnesses but a crimes against faith in system to protect witnesses in the future). I think the people best placed to assess this are the judiciary otherwise we are just reliant on Murrays testimony that he didn't mean to do this (this is obviously and understandably going to be biased).

I was just talking about the comparative argument above - perhaps regarding sentencing between Robinson and Murray.

Got you, yes. I think you made a good point.

I know it's an unpopular opinion on the boards here, but he did break the law. I think we get in to very mucky waters by treating certain people differently. As to the argument that others did the same and weren't prosecuted, I'd suggest perhaps they should. I can't help but think to ignore this sort of thing would put off others seeking the same protections.

I want to add I'm not relishing in his imprisonment or taking any delight in the circumstances around this. I disagree with him on certain matters, but I think overall he's doing and has done important work.

[TrenterPercenter]

I want to add I'm not relishing in his imprisonment or taking any delight in the circumstances around this. I disagree with him on certain matters, but I think overall he's doing and has done important work.

These are my feelings also.

[Paul Calf]

Okay, but by Cook's reckoning the judiciary shouldn't get to make that call. The ease with which you're shrugging off Waxy-Lemon's conviction without regard to any wider precedent, because you don't think what he does qualifies as journalism, is exactly the sort of apathy you lamented in your op.

It doesn't qualify as journalism. He's a bigot who spreads divisive lies and half-truths that inflame communal tension in service of billionaires.

I'm not a massive fan of Murray but he has at least endeavoured to conduct journalism that exposes wrongdoing, corruption and oppression to the detriment of people more powerful than he.

Stop pretending you don't know what journalism is. Stop this dry-support of fascism.

[Sherman Krank]

It doesn't qualify as journalism. He's a bigot who spreads divisive lies and half-truths that inflame communal tension in service of billionaires.

Spreading divisive lies and half-truths in service of billionaires is practically the dictionary definition of UK journalism.

[Jumblegraws]

It doesn't qualify as journalism. He's a bigot who spreads divisive lies and half-truths that inflame communal tension in service of billionaires.

I'm not a massive fan of Murray but he has at least endeavoured to conduct journalism that exposes wrongdoing, corruption and oppression to the detriment of people more powerful than he.

Stop pretending you don't know what journalism is. Stop this dry-support of fascism.

There's dozens of people on Twitter making the same "he's not a journalist, though" claim about Murray, justifying this with ad hoc qualifications that aren't any less valid than your explanation of why Robinson isn't a true Scotsman. You're the one drawing the same line as them, just in a different place, so don't come at me with this "dry-support of fascism" bollocks. FTR I think that Murray's jailing is selective prosecution and horribly disproportionate even if he's as culpable as the judgement says. I just also think that Cook's analysis (and I realise it wasn't you who posted the link in the first place) of a judicially constructed "two-tiered jounalism" is conjecture that isn't grounded in what the judgement actually says.

[Paul Calf]

The point is this: you know what Yaxely-Lennon is, and you know what his intentions are. Why are you entertaining the notion that his 'journalism' defence is in any way grounded in reality or good faith?

[The Ombudsman]

The point is this: you know what Yaxely-Lennon is, and you know what his intentions are. Why are you entertaining the notion that his 'journalism' defence is in any way grounded in reality or good faith?

What is the definition of a journalist then?

Yaxely-Lennon is abhorrent, but there are many other journalists out there who I dislike as much. I don't think we can not call them journalists just because we don't like their awful views.

[Jumblegraws]

I personally think Robinson is a thug whose pea-brain has been twisted by islamophobia. I honestly couldn't say if he sincerely regards himself as a journalist. In any case, viewed through the prism Cook has constructed of a two tiers of journalism existing as a matter of common law, then Murray has no better claim to the descriptor "journalist" than Robinson. It's not a question of entitling Robinson to whatever legal defences journalists have at their disposal, but of limiting the judiciary's ability to decide who is entitled to those defences without reference to any consistent criteria.

This is all academic afaic anyway since I think Cook's notion of two-tiered journalism is predicated on a faulty interpretation of the judgement. 

[Ignatius_S]

Did he mean first journalist in 50 years?

If so, it's a distinction that should be made - although it could be possibly be inferred that this was implied by use of 'media contempt', there are a couple of points to consider.

Firstly, media under the Contempt of Court Act does include social media.  Jurors 'researching' the case they are dealing with and commenting on social media are a good example of those being sent down for contempt of court.

Secondly, a statement like 'the first person in 50 years' sounds impressive but it's meaningless without context. If, for example, a law had been on the books for 100 years but was weak, prosecution difficult and even if someone was found guilty, there was no possibility of a custodial sentence, but was changed three years ago to make it easier to prosecute and people could be imprisoned; how useful is it to cite the period before revision without qualifying?

The current Contempt of Court Act was passed in 1981 and my understanding is that it was less vague than the previous law, which relied on a judge's interpretation. Because of that, would say it's probably more useful to cite the last 40 years, not 50, due to what the relevant law was.

Also, in the last decade, there was a definite shift in how the law was being employed - when Dominic Grieve was attorney general, there was a more proactive use - for example: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jul/29/sun-daily-mirror-guilty-contempt. In these type of cases, it's the publication/employer that runs foul of the law, not the journalist - so not a surprise that hacks aren't being sent down.

In a lot of contempt of court cases, the Internet and/or social media is very much involved - so there are factors that didn't used to be at play, which again needs to be considered when looking back over time.

[Paul Calf]

What is the definition of a journalist then?

Yaxely-Lennon is abhorrent, but there are many other journalists out there who I dislike as much. I don't think we can not call them journalists just because we don't like their awful views.

It's not because I detest his views. It's because he is not a journalist in motivation, intent, function or effect. This unthinking tolerance of bad-faith lies because of some misguided notion that freedom requires us to pretend that we believe things that are clearly untrue is a fundamental flaw in liberalism. You know what he is: a propagandist for violent authoritarian interests who don't care about freedom of speech or of anything else. Stop pretending that he isn't. Call his bluff.

[Paul Calf]

What is the definition of a journalist then?

Yaxely-Lennon is abhorrent, but there are many other journalists out there who I dislike as much. I don't think we can not call them journalists just because we don't like their awful views.

There certainly are, but we're not talking about them at the moment are we?

[Jumblegraws]

It's not because I detest his views. It's because he is not a journalist in motivation, intent, function or effect. This unthinking tolerance of bad-faith lies because of some misguided notion that freedom requires us to pretend that we believe things that are clearly untrue is a fundamental flaw in liberalism. You know what he is: a propagandist for violent authoritarian interests who don't care about freedom of speech or of anything else. Stop pretending that he isn't. Call his bluff.

Jesus Christ, what succour do you think I'm giving Robinson by being non-commital over whether or not he qualifies as a journalist? Do you think I'm seconding him for NUJ membership or something? You can make as many bare assertions as you like about Robinson obviously isn't a journalist and let's get real fellas we all know it don't we? but that's exactly the sort of presumption Cook believes shouldn't be at the judiciary's discretion. Take your argument up with him, I'm tired of trying to prove inconsistency in some formulation of two-tier journalism that I think is mostly bullshit in any case.

[The Ombudsman]

There certainly are, but we're not talking about them at the moment are we?

My point is who gets to decide who is a journalist and who isn't? How do you measure their motivation, intent, function and effect?

[jamiefairlie]

My point is who gets to decide who is a journalist and who isn't? How do you measure their motivation, intent, function and effect?

A few pertinent points:

Some accredited journalists wrote pieces that far more clearly identified the accusers. They have not been charged.

This charge was decided without jury, only judges. The lead judge, Lady Dorrian, is also pushing for jury-free hearings for sex offences in general in the future.

The Scottish prosecution service now has a clear track record of prosecuting bloggers who are critical of the Scottish government. The head of the service is part of the government.

[Jumblegraws]

The Scottish prosecution service now has a clear track record of prosecuting bloggers who are critical of the Scottish government. The head of the service is part of the government.

Who else has there been?

[The Ombudsman]

A few pertinent points:

Some accredited journalists wrote pieces that far more clearly identified the accusers. They have not been charged.

This charge was decided without jury, only judges. The lead judge, Lady Dorrian, is also pushing for jury-free hearings for sex offences in general in the future.

The Scottish prosecution service now has a clear track record of prosecuting bloggers who are critical of the Scottish government. The head of the service is part of the government.

Are court orders always not decided by judges? I don't see anything different here in this case.

As I said up the thread (I think) anyone who breaks it should be prosecuted.

[jamiefairlie]

Who else has there been?

Mark Hirst for one.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prosecution-of-salmond-ally-mark-hirst-malicious-lord-advocate-dorothy-bain-told-crgk7j7hd

[Jumblegraws]

Mark Hirst for one.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prosecution-of-salmond-ally-mark-hirst-malicious-lord-advocate-dorothy-bain-told-crgk7j7hd

So we have Craig Murray who got done for contempt, an offence charged ex proprio motu (i.e. by the Court itself, not the COPFS) and Mark Hirst. Some track record.

Am I right in inferring that you believe the lack of jury to be shady and procedurally unusual? If so, can you point me to instances where contempt of court was tried using solemn procedure?

I'm also not sure that Lady Dorian's distaste for juries in sexual assault trials is noteworthy, she's not exactly a trailblazer in this regard. Plenty of lawyers argue for the reduction of solemn procedure generally in Scots law.

[the hum]

I presume the crux of it all is Murray demonstrating criminal intent having been given fair warning to desist? Certainly none of his antics were in the wider public interest (attempting to compromise the anonymity of the complainants was, if anything, against it), but handing out a jail term seems heavy handed. Some clarity on the apparent difference between his circumstances and Garavelli etc would be handy.

[Paul Calf]

Jesus Christ, what succour do you think I'm giving Robinson by being non-commital over whether or not he qualifies as a journalist? Do you think I'm seconding him for NUJ membership or something? You can make as many bare assertions as you like about Robinson obviously isn't a journalist and let's get real fellas we all know it don't we? but that's exactly the sort of presumption Cook believes shouldn't be at the judiciary's discretion. Take your argument up with him, I'm tired of trying to prove inconsistency in some formulation of two-tier journalism that I think is mostly bullshit in any case.

"I am not effective in this thing that I am doing," isn't an argument for continuing to do it.

[TrenterPercenter]

PaulC - I was going to say before but resisted but your characterising of Jumblegraws as some fascist sympathiser/Robinson booster is completely unfair.  If we are talking about "arguments" then making these aspersions on a poster that is clearly very progressive is an example of a very poor (and unnecessary) one.

[Paul Calf]

That's not what I'm doing. Fascist sympathy is not the issue here, it's liberal complacency. When you know someone (Steven Lemons) is acting in bad faith, there's no obligation to pretend that they aren't.