[ad_1]
A reporter for a local daily had the right to hide behind a bus stop and take photos of defendants in court, a media watchdog has ruled.
The Independent Press Standards Authority has endorsed the Bolton News for its coverage of the Christopher Banks trial at Bolton Crown Court.
Banks, who was accused of sending threatening emails to Manchester City’s football coach, told IPSO he believed the reporter’s actions amounted to harassment.
However, IPSO disagreed and dismissed Mr Banks’ bid to face a retrial after a jury at Bolton Crown Court failed to reach a verdict.
Mr Banks, who filed a complaint under Articles 2 (privacy), 3 (harassment) and 12 (discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Conduct, said that as he left court, a news reporter showed him his photo. He said he noticed she was taking pictures and asked her: “Did you just take my picture?”
He said he found her actions alarming and distressing as she hid behind the bus stop.
Banks also claimed that he asked her who she was, who she worked for and why she was taking the photos, but she ignored him and “ran away” from the scene.
Banks (pictured) said he then tried to approach her and kept asking her loudly about who she was and the motive behind the photo, before she went to the newspaper’s office without giving her name or where she worked. It is said that
In response, the newspaper said reporters should not approach defendants during trials and do not need to make them aware of their presence, and that, in line with open justice principles, this information could be used to report on trials without the defendant’s permission. He said there is. Public domain.
The newspaper added that the reporter took photos outside the courtroom, which is permitted under the law and was not done to threaten the bank.
The paper added that it did not believe the journalist’s actions amounted to persistent pursuit or harassment, and that to the best of its recollection Banks did not ask her name or the publication for which she worked.
In its response to IPSO, the paper further outlined the risks associated with covering court proceedings, noting that photographers have taken steps to protect themselves following past attacks.
IPSO noted the news outlet’s position that journalists covering court proceedings posed a safety risk and that in light of that risk, journalists quickly left the area surrounding the courtroom.
Furthermore, the Commission noted that the purpose of Article 3, which requires journalists to reveal their identity and the identity of the publications they work for, is that the purpose of Article 3, which requires journalists to reveal their identity and the identity of the publications they work for, is to prevent people from requesting resignation or complaining because they do not know who to contact. He pointed out that the goal is to avoid a situation where it is not possible to file a claim.
In this case, the journalist had not revealed his identity, but that did not prevent Banks from contacting the publication to identify the journalist and make his concerns known.
Taking all factors into account, the Committee notes that it is not in a position to know what exactly was said outside the courtroom or what exactly the journalists heard, and finds that the provisions of paragraph 3 are correct. I didn’t think there was any basis for making a decision. The information was compromised because the journalists refused to identify themselves.
The charges were denied and the full judgment can be read here.
[ad_2]
Source link
