The UK's former top anti-terror police officer says the government should review the Contempt of Court Act, which was designed to ensure fair
trials by limiting reporting of cases. Do you agree?
Peter Clarke, who until last year headed the Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command, told the BBC that reporting restrictions can damage public confidence in police.
The Contempt of Court Act says once someone has been arrested, any kind of publication that creates "a substantial risk that the court of justice... will be seriously impeded or prejudiced" is a criminal offence, regardless of intent. This affects what the media can publish or broadcast and what the police can say.
The government has not responded to Mr Clarke's calls for a review, but says the law is designed to ensure a fair trial is held.
Is Peter Clarke right? Do reporting restrictions damage public confidence in the police? Is it possible to achieve a balance between a fair trial and freedom of press?
Read the full story
BBC
Peter Clarke, who until last year headed the Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command, told the BBC that reporting restrictions can damage public confidence in police.
The Contempt of Court Act says once someone has been arrested, any kind of publication that creates "a substantial risk that the court of justice... will be seriously impeded or prejudiced" is a criminal offence, regardless of intent. This affects what the media can publish or broadcast and what the police can say.
The government has not responded to Mr Clarke's calls for a review, but says the law is designed to ensure a fair trial is held.
Is Peter Clarke right? Do reporting restrictions damage public confidence in the police? Is it possible to achieve a balance between a fair trial and freedom of press?
Read the full story
BBC
