Four Sun journalists cleared of paying officials for stories.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31986754
Was it all worth while?
|
|
Well, the CPS thought they had a winnable case so they quite rightly pursued it.
|
One person, an MoD Official, pleaded guilty and got 12 months. In relation to the others something created sufficient doubt for the jury to acquit. Unless it's clear from a press report exactly what that doubt was is going to be difficult to track down.
Hopefully though the cases will act as a 'shot over the bows' to others tempted to sell tittle-tattle.
|
|
The CPS does seem to enjoy jumping on band wagons without thinking it through.
|
The journalists - provided they pleaded not guilty, of course - seem to be getting off.
The officials providing the information are being convicted.
Surely, if it is an offence to sell the information, then it must be be an offence to buy the information?
|
>> The journalists - provided they pleaded not guilty, of course - seem to be getting
>> off.
>>
>> The officials providing the information are being convicted.
>>
>> Surely, if it is an offence to sell the information, then it must be be
>> an offence to buy the information?
Ask yourself this, is it an offence to have and then publish the information? If it isn't, then is it an offence to buy it?
Its very easy to make a case against those who were trusted guardians of it, and had a duty to keep it safe, who then sell it, but not those who buy it.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 21 Mar 15 at 08:42
|
>> Surely, if it is an offence to sell the information, then it must be be
>> an offence to buy the information?
>>
That's my thinking too, it should be both or neither. If it's the public interest to buy, offer to buy, retain and use the information, then why the guilty verdict in selling the information.
|
I don't have an axe to grind, or a particular case to make. It does seem to me that much of the information should have been in the public domain. Provided that the information wasn't operationally sensitive - which it doesn't seem to have been.
Whether it is about, say, not having enough boots on the ground, or one or more of the princes playing silly beggars - shouldn't we be told?
|
>> That's my thinking too, it should be both or neither. If it's the public interest
>> to buy, offer to buy, retain and use the information, then why the guilty verdict
>> in selling the information.
The offence charged against those who sold the information was misconduct in public office, or in case of Bettina Jordan-Barber (who pleaded guilty) conspiracy to commit that offence. Only those holding public office can commit the offence and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.
It's a common law charge rather than breach of a specific provision in an act.
CPS guidance says the offence is committed when:
- a public officer acting as such
- wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself
- to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder
- without reasonable excuse or justification
The journo's were charged with aiding and abetting which was always going to be more difficult to prove.
What's more odd is that the former soldier who allegedly sold stories about the Princes was acquitted. A fly on the jury room wall might have an interesting tale as to their rationale.
And I bet Mrs Jordan-Barber is kicking herself for pleading guilty.
|
>> The offence charged against those who sold the information.
I'm sure that's all legally correct, still it's strange to say; yes we want the info in the public but we don't want anyone to hand it over in the first place, very odd.
As far as I know the journos admitted to giving them money.
|
>> And I bet Mrs Jordan-Barber is kicking herself for pleading guilty.
>>
That's one of the clear messages coming out of all this.
Make them prove it to a jury of fairly ordinary people.
|
>> The offence charged against those who sold the information was misconduct in public office,
I have misgivings about its use.
Something so vague, in common law, first used in 1783 and so subjective in many instances isn't necessarily right.
It is quite a modern phenomena to use it.
|
>> Something so vague, in common law, first used in 1783 and so subjective in many
>> instances isn't necessarily right.
There's a bit of me that says common law offences are a last resort too.
Not wrong per se but a dose of scepticism is probably healthy.
|
>> The CPS does seem to enjoy jumping on band wagons without thinking it through.
>>
From my understanding they felt they had to. They were given the info by the Sun as part of the phone hacking investegation. After being given the info and it was in the public domain that they had it, it was felt they couldn't just sit on it and do nothing.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 21 Mar 15 at 09:42
|
>> >> The CPS does seem to enjoy jumping on band wagons without thinking it through.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> From my understanding they felt they had to. They were given the info by the
>> Sun as part of the phone hacking investegation. After being given the info and it
>> was in the public domain that they had it, it was felt they couldn't just
>> sit on it and do nothing.
The phone hacking is being treated completely differently. The journalists in those cases are being convicted - it seems.
|
>> The phone hacking is being treated completely differently. The journalists in those cases are being
>> convicted - it seems.
The completely different bit is the offence charged. Intercepting communications is a specific statutory offence and pretty easy to prove.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 21 Mar 15 at 10:09
|
|
Part of the defence was that paying for stories is long accepted "Custom and Practice" in the newspaper industry. Footballers and entertainers, among others, are routinely paid for giving information to journalists and as long as that information wasn't obtained by unlawful means there is no offence. As Brompt says any offence in these cases was committed by the person supplying the information.
|
Never met a Sun hack, but was once done over by the Sunday People, same sort of thing.
If you look at the photos of these hacks, you can see that they can afford expensive clothes.
Of course I couldn't strike a hard bargain then and I still can't. The hacks who did me over were small, expensively dressed hoods, reminiscent of West End Central vice squad chaps, promising money but not really coughing up when it came to it.
For them it was taking striped candy off a nipper in a pushchair. For me it was an early lesson in the real world. 'Oh, I say...' but they were already legging it over the horizon towards the next story.
|
>> For me it was an early lesson in the real world. 'Oh, I say...' but they were already legging it over the horizon towards the next story.
I didn't understand this brisk, heartless and offhand behaviour until I became a hack myself. It's obviously more efficient not to care, but some hacks do their best to be honourable. They don't always have time though, it's a rapid profession even for a dilettante amateur like me. Couldn't do it now to save my life.
|
Another insider sent down for selling stories.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/01/ex-police-officer-milly-dowler-sun-simon-quinn
Loss of career, time in the slammer (not easy for an ex copper) and possibly loss of pension too seems a poor bargain for £7k.
|
Loss of career - serves him right.
18 months seems a bit strong, and doesn't seem to line up with what you can get for other offences, but I don't really pay enough attention to know.
Loss of pension, now that seems very harsh. That's years and years of punishment and hardship. That seems way over the top.
As an aside, do they have to give him back his own pension contributions?
|
Sun Journalists Cleared - Robin O'Reliant
