The law of media publicity contempt is obviously broken. The problem Essay

The law of media publicity contempt is obviously broken. The problem is that there is no better system that might reasonably su - Essay Example A strict implementation of prohibition laws such as the 1987 Act tend to clash, however, with certain basic human rights such as freedom of the press and the right to information. On top of this, advances in communication technology and the advent of globalisation make it doubly hard for authorities to fully impose sanctions on recalcitrant press and bloggers. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to say that the UK law on media publicity contempt is totally broken and that there is nothing that can be done about it. On the contrary, the UK media publicity contempt system has proven to be comparatively effective than those of other jurisdictions and the present state of the law presents a more mature approach in balancing between freedoms and obligations. State of the Law Media Publicity Contempt English media publicity contempt is governed primarily by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. It is a strict liability rule that does not take into consideration intent as an element in finding a verdi ct of guilt or absence of it and applies to publications, which include speech, writing and all other form of communications, addressed to the public. The strict liability rule applies only in the following cases: when publications create substantial risk in the obstruction or prejudice of judicial proceedings, and; the proceedings are active, as defined in Schedule 1 of said law. Schedule 1 describes an active proceeding, whether criminal or appellate, as the period from the time of a proceeding’s initial steps to the time of its conclusion, with initial steps including the arrest of the accused without warrant, the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the issuance of summons, the service of indictment or similar documents or oral charge. The conclusion stage of a proceeding includes the acquittal or any other verdict, which ends the proceeding or the discontinuance of the proceeding or by operation of law.1 The British law on media publicity contempt arose out of the 1820 case of R v Clement 2 where the Observer newspaper was fined ?500 for featuring a series of report on an ongoing trial. The case involved the trials of Cato Street conspirators who were then charged of treason for conspiring to kill members of the British Cabinet. The Observer was faithfully detailing the trials to the chagrin of the Government who was trying to conceal its substantive and procedural lapses. The newspaper’s editor was charged and tried in absentia for contempt for disregarding a court gag order. His subsequent appeal, which was also heard by almost the same judges who decided against him in the lower court contrary to the principle of natural justice, was dismissed.3 Since 1931, however, a â€Å"scandalising the court† case, or a case where the charge involves bringing down the authority of the judge or court through an act or publication, has not been successful in this jurisdiction.4 The 1981 Act came about as a result of the European Court of Human Right s (ECHR) decision in the case of The Sunday Times v United Kingdom5 where the newspaper featured a series of reports about the drug thalidomide that caused women to give birth to deformed babies during the pendency of the negotiations of settlement between