Part 5 - Ethical consideartiosn in identifying in reports of cases a defendant's relative or friend Flashcards
What does the Editors’ Code say about relatives or friends of defendants?
Clause 9 of the Editors’ Code of Practice warns that relatives or friends of defendants should not usually be identified unless such a person is ‘genuinely relevant’ to the story.
Gives some examples of how someone may be ‘genuinely relevant’ to the story.
A defendant’s relative, including a child, or friend who is in that case is a witness, victim or alleged victim or is otherwise mentioned in the proceedings is ‘genuinely relevant’.
What did Ipso rule regarding people who were ‘genuinely relevant’ to the story?
Ipso ruled that a report which included the fact that the defendant’s girlfriend (an adult) accompanied him to the court hearing and was in the public gallery, naming her, and which did not otherwise focus on her, did not breach the code because her ‘apparent act of support’ for him made her ‘genuinely relevant’ to the story.
What may the most ethical course be as regards a defendant’s child who is ‘genuinely relevant’?
If there is reference to the child in the coverage, not to identify him/her by name or image.
What has Ipso ruled regarding defendants’ children who are ‘genuinely relevant’?
Ipso has ruled that a report which included the names of a defendant’s wife and children when quoting from mitigation given for him in court did not breach the Editors’ Code of Practice because this mentioned made them ‘genuinely relevant’ but that Ipso, referring to editors’ discretion, welcomed the publication’s decision to delete the children’s names from the online article.
