A while ago, during some high profile double murder trial (unfortunately I can't remember exactly which one), the BBC accidentally posted what I presumed to be their editing notes on the webpage with the story on. These were up for no more than 2 minutes or so, but in that time I grabbed them and saved them for future reference.
It only just occurred to me to ask someone about them.
The text is as follows:
Quote:
MATERIAL
What we have done is a Neil Bennett 1800 pkg with clips of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken MacDonald, and Erol Robinson a solicitor for two of the defendants. This package can ONLY run in the event of at least ONE GUILTY VERDICT. The interview with the DPP was done on the understanding that it ONLY ran if a guilty verdict was returned. It has been scripted in such a way that it does not matter which of the defendants the guilty verdict has been returned against. This pkg is only intended to run after the material generated by the team at Court (Valerie Jones/Rajesh Mirchandani et al).
For R4 programmes and Five Live there is also an interview done by Neil Bennett with the DPP which can be used as required. When I originally approached the DPP he was not keen on doing live interviews on this subject. However, after listening to Neil's interview I can see no reason why bids for a live should not be put in by programmes in the event of a guilty verdict.
The Press Officer that handled the interview request was Russell Hayes 020 7710 6088
Neil is away today - and over the weekend. This is his 1800 script which has been LEGALLED by Shelly Bradley on 18th March at 1050.
CUE MATERIAL : The level of protection given to witnesses made this trial unique. Four of them - including the key eye witness -gave evidence from behind screens, were given pseudonyms and had their voices electronically distorted. The prosecution said that because of the threat to witnesses lives this was the only way the trial could proceed. The defence say it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Here's our Crime Correspondent Neil Bennett. SCRIPT : Intimidation of witnesses is becoming more frequent - particularly in some of Britain's inner cities where rival gangs use guns to protect their territory. Ever more complex ways have been devised to persuade people to give evidence and a new phrase in the legal dictionary was coined at Leicester Crown Court - pseunonymous witnesses . Key witnesses were given pseudonyms and their voices distorted so there could be no danger of identifying them. The Director Of Public Prosecutions Ken MacDonald said the trial judge had to balance the interests of the men accused and a community traumatised by gun crime.
[GOTO AUDIO NAME: Ken Macdonald] "We are not going to have parts of the country that are no go areas for the criminal justice system. We are not going to have parts of the country where trials don't go ahead because local criminal gangs are in the business of trying to sabotage them. These trials are not going to be sabotaged."
SCRIPT : Defence lawyers were told if witnesses were convicted criminals themselves but still didn't know who they really were. This, says Erol Robinson who represented two of the defendants, said it set a dangerous precedent and undermined the defence case
[GOTO AUDIO NAME: Erol Robinson] "There will definitely be a appeal. There has been a grave miscarriage of justice following one of the most unfair trials of modern times. And we are confident that the criminal justice process in terms of an appeal are capable of remedying that."
SCRIPT : The unique arrangements for this trial were approved by the Court of Appeal and the Crown Prosecution Service insists they conformed to European Human Rights legislation.
|
As well as providing a vaguely interesting insight into the workings of BBC News, the bit that caught my eye was the part about the DPP giving an interview about a trial
that was in progress, assuming guilt, on the understanding that it would only be broadcast if at least one of the defendents turned out to be guilty.
Now, I don't claim to know anything about legal proceedings, but would this not technically amount to some kind of contempt of court?
At the end of the day the case has been dead for a good while (as I recall both defendents were found guilty), but I'm just asking to satisfy curiosity.
Linear Mode
