UK Media Gagged In "Official Secrets" Trial

An anonymous reader writes "According to an an article at Cryptome, the UK media has been gagged from reporting on the trial of an ex-intelligence agent. More than this, they've even been gagged from reporting on the gag! Several UK websites that were covering the story have removed it. Insidious..."

Comments

This has been on freenet for days now.

[Harik]

Quoting from "Pussy Galore" (SSK@xdDLu9KYaJGEL9543hOrarcoFM8PAgM/PussyGalore// ) who got it from rotton.com.

13th October in the Year of Our Lord 2002

"The British media have been gagged from reporting sensational courtroom evidence of the former MI5 spy David Shayler, including his alleged proof that the secret service paid £100,000 ($280,000 at current exchange rates) for al-Qaeda terrorists to try to assassinate Libya's leader, Muammar Gaddafi, in 1986.

In its efforts to contain Shayler's allegations, the Government has even stopped the media from reporting its successful attempt to win a court gag order."

Is this not incredible, an Alice in Wonderland scenario? Not only can the press not report the proceedings but also they cannot report that they have been gagged. Yet, foreign press and websites can do as they please. Sadly, in the UK such happenings are not incredible, they occur too often.

Duke Morbid's Freesite is UK based. We have not received a "Public Interest Immunity certificate" so we shall say what we like; we would anyway.

Blunkett and Straw, two notable fascists in Fuehrer/Anti-Christ Blair's government issued the gagging orders; they were not behaving out of character. But who is being denied the news? Not foreigners and not London's chattering classes. The chattering classes at their dinner parties will be fully in the picture as to what is going on in court even if the case is held in camera. Everyone down from the judge, through the barristers and jury to the humblest court official will be discussing the case. Of course they will be discussing it "in confidence" and of course it is standard practice to pass "confidences" onward "in confidence". Soon every half-educated person in London (10% of its population) will know the details. Provincial Dukes and their supporting infrastructure of artisans and peasants will hear nothing of this.

Why the, partial, secrecy? What is there to protect? Certainly not sensitive intelligence operations in progress. The events relate to 1986 and much water has passed under the bridge since then. Thus what is being protected is the good name of MI5 and, much much more importantly, the reputations of diverse politicians of differing persuasions who have been overseeing MI5. God forbid that any politician should be made to look stupid either through conniving with a daft MI5 scheme or by failing to give MI5 proper scrutiny. The potential scandal reaches to the Privy Council, no less, and Brenda chairs it (actually the prats all stand around a table for 'traditional' reasons but there are significant sub-committees that do the real work in secret).

What of the press and their much vaunted fearless reporting of the truth? Collectively the press could easily smash the power of gagging notices imposed by the executive: in a supposedly civilised democracy it would seem odd if a host of editors were to be imprisoned for contempt of court. So why do they acquiesce? The answer is obvious: there is something in it for them (proprietors especially). They can have the satisfaction of being kept fully in the know (and thus have reason to feel important because the information is denied to provincial Dukes, artisans and peasants) and expect to to be rewarded by life peerages (proprietors), knighthoods (editors) and lesser baubles (the journalistic rabble); really well behaved editors will also get the chairmanships of lucrative QUANGOs too when they retire (proprietors are too rich to require this boon).

We are already a Duke, so the establishment has nothing further to offer us (apart from the Crown), thus we can afford to be fearless in our reporting.

Way to be on the ball, people! Looks like freenet has faster news then slashdot, despite only being able to update at midnight GMT.

Re:official secrets.... yeah, right.........

[aebrain]

how can you have 'official' and 'unofficial' secrets? How can that work? and what secrets are 'official' and which are 'unofficial'?

The unofficial answer is that I could tell you, but I'd have to kill-9 you. The official answer? You're not cleared for that.

But seriously folks... the definition of the types of information that is considered officially secret is within the Official Secrets Act legislation. I've signed the Official Secrets Act (Australian version - actually section 79 of the Crimes Act). And that's about all I can really say about it, apart from the fact that the quoted link's to an unofficial version. The UK version is a bit different, and the quoted link is to an official version.

Unlike many websites, neither has anything to do with secretaries, or secretions.

Re:does this happen often?

[seaton carew]

I guess it does.

Try searching for "shayler" on the BBC news site...
Looks like public interest in this story officially expired back in March.

Even stranger, the Financial Times [subscription required] reports "No matches" for the same search.

At least The Guardian are on the case, although even they have had some articles censored.
Of course, they can't actually report that this censorship occurred.

Scary.

UK has *court*, not Government censorship

[Malcolm MacArthur]

Well.. the UK has a restriction of the press when dealing with crimes.

Let's take the DC Area sniper as an example. If this was the UK, the press would not be allowed to cover this, until someone was caught, and put to trial, and then, no names could be used.

Not quite.

It is true that there are some limitations on reporting on a trial in progress or revealing certain details of a suspect who has been formally charged - for instance, as pointed out, when a suspect has a previous criminal record. Under the legal systems (there are separate judicial systems in England and Wales (both share the same judicial system), Scotland, Northen Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man), a paper cannot report whether a person who has been charged holds a criminal record. This is because this prior knowledge might unfairly influence a jury, who are supposed to be fair and unbiased. The judge/sherriff/magistrate/whatever does however have access to this information, and takes it into account when passing sentence. The idea being that everyone going into court is treated equally, no matter what their previous record. However, if a member of the jury knows that the accused is a criminal, this doesn't preclude them from serving on a jury trying the accused - unless they have some sort of relationship with the accused.

If the person was found Not Guilty, the press wouldn;t be allowed to talk to the person, their family, friends, etc, unless that person came to THEM first.

Not quite true, there are one or two exceptions for the victim in certain crimes - rape, for instance. I believe there were plans to extend anonymity to those accused and cleared of rape, but I don't know if they were passed or not.

A court MAY, however, pass an injunction banning the reporting of names or details of the trial in a case while the case is ongoing. But if an injunction is not sought, there is no automatic ban on the reporting of the facts of the case. It's basically on a case-by-case basis, and the vast majority of cases have no injunctions against the reporting of the case.

If the person was found Guilty, then they can use names, and cover it in greatest detail.

Usually, unless the court meets in camera. In which case the business of the court in camera remains confidential. Quite rare as far as I know.

Also, sometimes court injunctions can apply for a long time after the case. As far as I know, there is no limit on the length of time an injunction can apply for. One case I recall involved a woman who had an affair with a Government minister in the 1980s... an injunction was placed on the woman which barred her from discussing the case OR the affair with the media for 10 years (or was it longer?) after the trial. I don't know what the grounds were for such a lengthly injunction.

Honestly, I wouldn;t mind something like that around here... too often I see the press trying to give every little detail of what's going on, and fouling up investigations by tippig off the perps.

Absolutely. I believe that (where not abused, as in the case of the Government minister and his lover...) it is far better. There was a notable case against some famous person that collapsed on a technicality because of certain details that were reported in the Press; this has led to calls for MORE controls on what the newspapers may publish - which is probably not a good move...

Just for your information, there are also some other weirdnesses with the UK's legal systems:

• Photography, painting and even SKETCHING in court is banned. Here in the UK we have a whole cadre of court artists... their task is to go into the court, write down notes on the appearance of the court and the people within, try to memorise as much as they can, then leave the court and draw sketches for the media! If you ever see UK TV news of a trial, you will see what I mean. Now you know why.
• Judges really DO wear wigs, and High Court judges in England do still wear judicial robes and silk stockings...
• Trial by combat in Scotland was only struck off the statute books in the late 1980s. Although no one had elected for trial by combat for several hundred years, two brothers who were fighting a court case asked for trial by combat. After a few months' legal confusion (which was probably what they really wanted :), their request was denied...
• Some matters (very few) are still heard by ecclesiastical (Church) courts. One recent example was a church official, who insisted an employment case be heard by an ecclesiastical court. This made the trial cost about a quarter of a million pounds, as the court had to be specially convened.
• Final Court of Appeal in all jurisdictions is the House of Lords, which has a quorum of... three. (To put that in perspective, there are several hundred Lords who may sit in the house...)

Oh, and to return to the topic on hand. As far as I know (gleaned from Mark Thomas' Secret Map of Britain programme and books I've read), there are no formal channels in the UK for censorship of the press (excepting a court injunction). Basically, if there is news of a sensitive nature, the Government will talk to editors and programme producers in the mass media and tell them not to publish. And if they do, then they break the Official Secrets Act and go to jail. Simple as that.

There have been cases of papers breaching D (or DA) notices. None ended up in court IIRC. But it does prevent the worst stuff from leaking out...

Re:UK has *court*, not Government censorship

[Malcolm MacArthur]

I.E. for legal purposes, the country of England and the country of Wales are one and the same. As far as I know :)

Until Welsh devolution, it used to be quite common to refer to "England & Wales" in statistics, etc.

The reason we have different legal systems is because it's a United Kingdom : they were all separate nations at one point and became part of the United Kingdom. Except Wales, which was annexed by England - hence England and Wales have a common legal system.

History lesson time: First England was formed out of various small kingdoms, then England entered into a union with Cornwall (at that time independent). England invaded Wales. Then it invaded Ireland. So now we have England, Wales, Cornwall and Ireland. That's three legal systems - Cornwall, Ireland, and "England and Wales".

The royal houses of England and Scotland were united in 1606 (?) when King James I ascended to the throne of England. Scotland and England remained separate countries until, thanks mainly to an attempt to found a colony on a swamp (Darien), Scotland was bankrupted (about 30-40% of the nation's wealth was sunk into this failed colony...) - this made union with England attractive, and the Act of Union was passed in 1707, unifying Scotland, England, Wales and Cornwall into what was called the United Kingdom of Great Britain. As part of the act, Scotland retained its own legal system. So now we have four.

Some point along the line, Ireland got added in and it became the United Kindgdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Now we have five legal systems (Ireland had its own legal system as well...).

Time passes.

Cornwall's status as a country and its powers gradually eroded, until, in the 1800s, it became a county of England. Previously, Cornwall had its own parliament and legal system - this was abolished when it became a county. Now we're back down to 4, Cornwall becoming part of England...

Time passes.

Eventually, after many years of fighting, the UK govt. gave up on Ireland. However, the mainly Protestant North of Ireland (known as the Six Counties of Ulster) was determined to remain part of the UK. So, they stayed part of the UK, the other 26 counties of Ireland forming Eire (now known as the Republic of Ireland). This is the cause of all that stuff you might see on the news about Northen Ireland (remember? Some bloke called Clinton went there... ;).

So, when Northern Ireland was created (at which point IIRC, it was called Ulster), it was given home rule, or devolution. So Northern Ireland ended up setting up its OWN legal system as well... So you have five legal systems.

Oh, and of course there's the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands, which are basically a vestige of the Norman kingdom which invaded England in 1066... So, that's seven legal systems. (actually, it's nine because Jersey, Guernsey and Sark have separate governments :).

Confused? You are now ;-)

-M.