The Campaign for Freedom of Information has warned that the government’s decision to veto the release of the Iraq cabinet minutes could set a precedent.
Maurice Frankel, the Campaign’s director, said the Campaign “was concerned that having been used once, the veto might now be used in other cases involving the examination of policy at lower levels in government.”
It also expressed serious concern at the statement of Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, that the government was actively considering widening some of the Freedom of Information Act’s exemptions, to make it easier to withhold official information.
The recent review of the 30 year rule, by a committee chaired by Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, recommended that government records be released after 15 years instead of 30 years.
The campaign noted the Dacre report also suggested that the government should consider amending the the FoI Act’s exemptions to provide "enhanced protection"’ for sensitive information.
Frankel said this "raises the prospect of an unacceptable trade off, greater secrecy about current information in return for more access to old government files.”
Showing posts with label Jack Straw. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jack Straw. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Jack Straw says community role of regional newspapers cannot be replaced by web
Justice Secretary Jack Straw described regional newspapers as "irreplaceable" when he gave the keynote speech at the Press Gazette Media Law conference seminar today.
"Regional newspapers are irreplaceable. I don't believe that the role that they play in communities can be replaced by the web - they can be complemented by the web but they can't be replaced," he said.
Straw told the conference that the findings of the Ministry of Justice's review of the "no win, no fee" Conditional Fee Arrangements which can send costs in libel cases soaring would be published this month.
He said it was not acceptable that excessive costs should be charged in no-win no-fee libel cases where the damages awarded are small, especially at a time when regional newspapers are suffering financially.
"There's an issue here of proportionality and of looking very carefully at the way in which the CFA system has operated and whether it's leading to unjust conclusions when newspapers are being forced to settle," he said.
Straw also pledged to take a "good look" at a 160-year-old legal precedent that allows people to sue publishers for online libel without any time limit.
"Regional newspapers are irreplaceable. I don't believe that the role that they play in communities can be replaced by the web - they can be complemented by the web but they can't be replaced," he said.
Straw told the conference that the findings of the Ministry of Justice's review of the "no win, no fee" Conditional Fee Arrangements which can send costs in libel cases soaring would be published this month.
He said it was not acceptable that excessive costs should be charged in no-win no-fee libel cases where the damages awarded are small, especially at a time when regional newspapers are suffering financially.
"There's an issue here of proportionality and of looking very carefully at the way in which the CFA system has operated and whether it's leading to unjust conclusions when newspapers are being forced to settle," he said.
Straw also pledged to take a "good look" at a 160-year-old legal precedent that allows people to sue publishers for online libel without any time limit.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Newspaper Society gives 'qualified welcome' to opening of family courts to media scrutiny
The Newspaper Society has given a “qualified welcome” to Justice Secretary Jack Straw's announcement that family courts will be opened to the media in April.
Sue Oake, NS senior legal advisor, said: “We are delighted that Jack Straw has reinstated the government’s original proposal to allow the media access to all tiers of family courts, recognising the vital role of the media in safeguarding transparency and upholding the open justice principle, as the NS has consistently argued for.
“We will want to scrutinise carefully the proposals for reporting restrictions – clearly these will need to be proportionate and targeted: to impose a blanket “default” requirement of anonymity for all parties will result in a restrictions more draconian, in many cases, than those pertaining already. We are particularly concerned by the proposal to reverse Clayton V Clayton. “
“On disclosure of information, we are disappointed that the statement does not make any move towards allowing direct or indirect disclosure to the media by parties to the proceedings. Again, with appropriate safeguards, this could have been an effective means to aid openness so we are pleased to note Mr Straw’s assurance during the Parliamentary debate that he is still “actively considering” this issue.”
Sue Oake, NS senior legal advisor, said: “We are delighted that Jack Straw has reinstated the government’s original proposal to allow the media access to all tiers of family courts, recognising the vital role of the media in safeguarding transparency and upholding the open justice principle, as the NS has consistently argued for.
“We will want to scrutinise carefully the proposals for reporting restrictions – clearly these will need to be proportionate and targeted: to impose a blanket “default” requirement of anonymity for all parties will result in a restrictions more draconian, in many cases, than those pertaining already. We are particularly concerned by the proposal to reverse Clayton V Clayton. “
“On disclosure of information, we are disappointed that the statement does not make any move towards allowing direct or indirect disclosure to the media by parties to the proceedings. Again, with appropriate safeguards, this could have been an effective means to aid openness so we are pleased to note Mr Straw’s assurance during the Parliamentary debate that he is still “actively considering” this issue.”
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
"Does Jack Straw know what constitutes the modern media?" asks Joshua Rozenberg
The Daily Telegraph's legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg raises some very interesting points about the privileged access journalists would be given under plans to open up the family courts to "accredited" media. (see posting below)
He writes: "It is fundamental to the Government’s proposals that the media should be given privileged access to the courts. As a journalist, I naturally welcome this.
"And it must be right to draw a distinction between the press and the public at large. Opening the family courts to everyone would put children and families at risk of being identified and stigmatised. It would not be possible to stop identifying information from being made public.
"But Mr Straw does not seem to have given enough thought to what constitutes the modern media.
"If I decide to write about legal affairs on my own website, am I a freelance journalist who should be allowed access to the courts or a blogger who should not? And who is to decide?
"Mr Straw’s officials pointed out that press seats at criminal trials are allocated by court officials. But those denied such seats can usually attend as members of the public. That option would not be available here.
"Journalism is not a profession, in the sense of an occupation with controlled entry such as law or architecture. Anyone can call himself or herself a journalist. It is therefore essential that the final decision on who may attend the family courts as a journalist is one for the courts themselves, not officials.
"Subject to that concern, Mr Straw’s announcement is to be welcomed. His aim is clearly to increase public confidence in the courts...But his proposals are based on the assumption that there are enough journalists to cover the courts effectively. In these straightened times, this may be a rash assumption to make. Unless, of course, you include the growing band of freelances."
As an ex-Crown Court reporter, I think Joshua Rozenberg is right to stress that the final decision on which journalists be allowed to attend family courts should be up to the courts rather than officials. In my experience court officials tend to see journalists as unwelcome outsiders and often put barriers in their way.
He writes: "It is fundamental to the Government’s proposals that the media should be given privileged access to the courts. As a journalist, I naturally welcome this.
"And it must be right to draw a distinction between the press and the public at large. Opening the family courts to everyone would put children and families at risk of being identified and stigmatised. It would not be possible to stop identifying information from being made public.
"But Mr Straw does not seem to have given enough thought to what constitutes the modern media.
"If I decide to write about legal affairs on my own website, am I a freelance journalist who should be allowed access to the courts or a blogger who should not? And who is to decide?
"Mr Straw’s officials pointed out that press seats at criminal trials are allocated by court officials. But those denied such seats can usually attend as members of the public. That option would not be available here.
"Journalism is not a profession, in the sense of an occupation with controlled entry such as law or architecture. Anyone can call himself or herself a journalist. It is therefore essential that the final decision on who may attend the family courts as a journalist is one for the courts themselves, not officials.
"Subject to that concern, Mr Straw’s announcement is to be welcomed. His aim is clearly to increase public confidence in the courts...But his proposals are based on the assumption that there are enough journalists to cover the courts effectively. In these straightened times, this may be a rash assumption to make. Unless, of course, you include the growing band of freelances."
As an ex-Crown Court reporter, I think Joshua Rozenberg is right to stress that the final decision on which journalists be allowed to attend family courts should be up to the courts rather than officials. In my experience court officials tend to see journalists as unwelcome outsiders and often put barriers in their way.
Opening family courts is victory for press to report divorce, care and custody cases
The announcement by Justice Secretary Jack Straw that family court hearings are for the first time to be opened to the media, should be warmly welcomed by the press. Family court proceedings covering such matters as divorce, custody and care proceedings have been shrouded in secrecy for too long.
What the Ministry of Justice describes as "accredited media" will be able to attend all levels of family courts, removing the inconsistency of access between the higher and lower courts. Although, the court will be able to restrict attendance if the welfare of the child requires it, or for the safety and protection of parties or witnesses.
Introducing the new scheme Jack Straw said: "It is critical that family courts make the right decisions and the public have confidence they are doing so. A key part of building trust in the system is that people understand how it works.
"At the same time, we must protect the privacy of children and families involved in family court cases so they are not identified or stigmatised by their community or friends."
A pilot project will start in Spring 2009 to place anonymised judgements online from some family cases so that the public can see how decisions were reached.
The opening up of the family courts should create opportunities for specialist court reporters and freelance court news agencies and, perhaps, create employment for some of the reporters losing their jobs as newspapers cut costs. Some social workers believe that opening up the family courts to the press will give the media an insight into the problems they are up against and counter the negative publicity they have received in the wake of the "Baby P" case.
Jack Straw will win even more plaudits from the press if, as anticipated, he takes action to cap fees charged by lawyers in 'no win, no fee' arrangements in libel cases.
What the Ministry of Justice describes as "accredited media" will be able to attend all levels of family courts, removing the inconsistency of access between the higher and lower courts. Although, the court will be able to restrict attendance if the welfare of the child requires it, or for the safety and protection of parties or witnesses.
Introducing the new scheme Jack Straw said: "It is critical that family courts make the right decisions and the public have confidence they are doing so. A key part of building trust in the system is that people understand how it works.
"At the same time, we must protect the privacy of children and families involved in family court cases so they are not identified or stigmatised by their community or friends."
A pilot project will start in Spring 2009 to place anonymised judgements online from some family cases so that the public can see how decisions were reached.
The opening up of the family courts should create opportunities for specialist court reporters and freelance court news agencies and, perhaps, create employment for some of the reporters losing their jobs as newspapers cut costs. Some social workers believe that opening up the family courts to the press will give the media an insight into the problems they are up against and counter the negative publicity they have received in the wake of the "Baby P" case.
Jack Straw will win even more plaudits from the press if, as anticipated, he takes action to cap fees charged by lawyers in 'no win, no fee' arrangements in libel cases.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
'No win, No fee' study finished and being considered says Ministry of Justice
A study of the controversial 'no win, no fee' arrangements in libel and other cases in England and Wales by three academics has been completed and is now being considered, the Ministry of Justice has confirmed.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “In June the Ministry of Justice commissioned a scoping study into the operation of no win, no fee. The study will provide an objective assessment of these arrangements and consider the extent to which they are meeting the access to justice needs of the public. The scoping study was completed in October and we are currently considering the report to determine the next steps”.
The 'no win, no fee' arrangements (also known as Conditional Fee Arrangements) are controversial because lawyers can charge an 'uplift' in their costs if they win, inflating the costs for the press in even simple libel cases. If the press wins they often have little likelihood of recovering their costs.
Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre, said in his speech at the Society of Editors last month, that Justice Secretary Jack Straw would in "the next few months unveil proposals to reform CFAs" and suggested that their fees could be capped. He was scathing about their impact and highlighted a case in which the Mail on Sunday was last year ordered to pay Labour MP Martyn Jones damages of £5,000 after alleging he had sworn at a Commons official. The MoS faced a legal bill of £388,000 from the MP's lawyers plus its own costs of £136,000. Dacre said: "Today newspapers, even wealthy ones like the Mail, think long and hard before contesting actions even if they know they are in the right for fear of the ruinous financial implications. For the local press such actions are now, almost certainly, out of the question. Instead they stump up some cash to settle as quickly as possible to avoid court actions which if they were to lose could, in some cases, close them. Some justice."
The study was undertaken by three senior academics, Professors Richard Moorhead, Paul Fenn and Neil Rickman.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “In June the Ministry of Justice commissioned a scoping study into the operation of no win, no fee. The study will provide an objective assessment of these arrangements and consider the extent to which they are meeting the access to justice needs of the public. The scoping study was completed in October and we are currently considering the report to determine the next steps”.
The 'no win, no fee' arrangements (also known as Conditional Fee Arrangements) are controversial because lawyers can charge an 'uplift' in their costs if they win, inflating the costs for the press in even simple libel cases. If the press wins they often have little likelihood of recovering their costs.
Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre, said in his speech at the Society of Editors last month, that Justice Secretary Jack Straw would in "the next few months unveil proposals to reform CFAs" and suggested that their fees could be capped. He was scathing about their impact and highlighted a case in which the Mail on Sunday was last year ordered to pay Labour MP Martyn Jones damages of £5,000 after alleging he had sworn at a Commons official. The MoS faced a legal bill of £388,000 from the MP's lawyers plus its own costs of £136,000. Dacre said: "Today newspapers, even wealthy ones like the Mail, think long and hard before contesting actions even if they know they are in the right for fear of the ruinous financial implications. For the local press such actions are now, almost certainly, out of the question. Instead they stump up some cash to settle as quickly as possible to avoid court actions which if they were to lose could, in some cases, close them. Some justice."
The study was undertaken by three senior academics, Professors Richard Moorhead, Paul Fenn and Neil Rickman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
