AddThis SmartLayers

Newspaper pushes to protect identity of sex attack victims

A weekly newspaper has seen success in a fight to try and prevent the names of sexual offence victims being circulated by the court service.

Stevenage based The Comet ran a number of articles after concerns that organisations such as local authorities, charities, radio stations, newspapers, news agencies, the NHS, police and probation service were being emailed unencrypted court lists by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.

The Archant owned title reported that as well as named individuals, the court lists were sent to central email addresses, making it difficult to monitor who is accessing them.

By law, victims of sexual offences should have their identities protected by lifetime anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.

The newspaper feared that the names of victims of sexual offences appearing on the list could lead to the victims being identified in reports.

Editor Darren Isted said: “It’s something we noticed with the lists. When we contacted the courts they said it went to trusted agencies but couldn’t be sure.

“I think the thing is that they were going out to other agencies apart from the media, the police is fine but the lists weren’t encrypted and there was no guarantee who was receiving them.”

Since the newspaper first raised concerns through an article in July, MPs backed the newspaper and changes have now been made to make sure the right people are receiving the list.

Added Darren: “It proves that local newspapers can make a change. Some names have been removed to make sure the list is seen by the right person.

“It wasn’t a hard hitting campaign, just something we raised locally.”

Since the paper first brought the anonymity issue to the attention of HMCTS in July the list continued to include the names of victims of sexual offences – even identifying a teenage girl allegedly raped in Stevenage.

The Ministry of Justice reviewed the lists after Stephen McPartland, MP for Stevenage, contacted the Attorney General to highlight The Comet’s campaign and to request urgent action to stop what the title called a “serious breach” by the court service.

Said Mr McPartland : “I am delighted the campaign with The Comet to prevent the breach of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 has achieved its first success.”

The weekly paper has also received support from the leader of Stevenage Borough Council, Sharon Taylor, and local MP Peter Lilley who told the paper he felt they had uncovered a serious issue.

A spokesman for HMCTS told the newspaper that the practice of providing lists and registers to the media has existed for over 20 years and has been cleared with the Information Commissioner.

 

 

 

18 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • October 26, 2011 at 10:03 am
    Permalink

    What a ridiculous campaign…let’s censor the court lists. I don’t show them around to my mates but equally I like to have all the information that is available.
    Why don’t you now ask to have all the minors removed as well as it breaches sec 49…thus making our job that extra bit harder.
    I think we have to trust the courts not to send them to people who will use them for nefarious means rather than try to get pointless legislation because you didn’t have the splash that week.
    Clowns.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 26, 2011 at 10:06 am
    Permalink

    Ladies and gentlemen, what are we doing? I mean, really, what ARE WE DOING?!

    Set aside the pointless and counter-productive nature of the campaign – which echoes the hacking protests, with misguided journalists essentially asking for legislation to make it harder for them to do their jobs – and consider whether the readers could give a flying fig about his issue?

    Absolutely ridiculous. Find some news.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 26, 2011 at 10:14 am
    Permalink

    For the two people who have posted comments so far, nobody cares for your views. Writing comments on a story like this, especially anonymous comments from journalists without balls, serves nobody well, except the egos of the authors. I think this is an important campaign, and I’m all for it.
    Stephen Lees – real name, from a journalist with balls.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 26, 2011 at 10:44 am
    Permalink

    This is the most moronic thing I have ever read. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

    I wonder if Mr Isted has any sense at all.

    Have just shown this story to everyone in my newsroom and the reaction has been the same.

    “What the ****”

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 26, 2011 at 12:59 pm
    Permalink

    Ha ha ha, this isn’t school! Knowing my identity lends no more weight to my argument or my views!

    And quite frankly, I will post my opposition to a campaign if I so choose, so please, don’t tell me what I can and can’t say Stephen.

    In fact, I’m going to launch a campaign to hide the identity of those who comment on stories through fear someone might care.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 26, 2011 at 1:02 pm
    Permalink

    You agree with this campaign…why? Who are you protecting?
    You can get the name of a sex attack victim by attending court on the day if you are so inclined.
    Who would stand to gain by disseminating the information on court lists?
    And don’t forget sex cases are covered by section 8 which makes it a criminal offence to identify the victim.
    Can you please supply evidence that this action is necessary or like I said before was this a slow news week?

    ps Googled you, couldn’t find you -s o you may as well be anonymous. You may have balls but I don’t see much evidence of any news stories.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 26, 2011 at 2:47 pm
    Permalink

    It’s a bit of a weird one given the circulation list can hardly be described as extensive and legislation preventing naming sex assault victims is drum-tight.

    You might as well ban the courts from knowing the victims’ names in case the Comet editor believes jurors or magistrates should not be be trusted with the information.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 27, 2011 at 12:06 pm
    Permalink

    I’m sorry that some media colleagues haven’t taken kindly to this but it wasn’t about reducing press access and it wasn’t about making our job easier.
    We spoke to members of our community who were victims of such crimes and parents of children who had been abused and they were horrified to learn that the names were being sent out on lists to email addresses which the sender simply could not verifiy. As members of the press we know how the court system works and take much of it for granted. Most of our readers never even set foot in a court and the entire process is alien to them.
    Of course the press should have full access as should the police and other agencies who are aware of the legal implciations. But our point was if they are being sent out electronically then they should either be encrypted or the recipient should be a confirmed address.
    We were simply listening to what our readers said and we acted on it. We spoke to our MPs as, like most papers, we have good relationships with them and it was taken to the highest level. That’s all.
    What do you want? An easy life or to actually do something for your readers…?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 28, 2011 at 8:45 am
    Permalink

    ….so readers contacted you about this ‘problem’ or you contacted them to create a problem.

    Come on Darren ‘fess up. Slow news week, was it?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 28, 2011 at 2:12 pm
    Permalink

    Yawn? Slow news week? Isn’t it our job to actually inform people what is happening in their name? If your child had been involved in such a case would you be happy that their name, which should be protected, is being issued without the sender knowing exactly where it was going?

    And to answer your question readers did indeed contact us and wrote on our letters page showing their unhappiness at the system and their support for our call for it to be looked at.

    Everyone’s idea of what makes a story can differ so there is no right or wrong answer but I’d to think any self-respecting journalist would let their readers decide, they often have a far better idea than many ‘experts’ in this industry.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 28, 2011 at 4:05 pm
    Permalink

    What is the point of your campaign exactly?
    Do you really believe that people will use these lists for nefarious means?
    A sex attack victim’s name is not a secret to those who want to find out but their identity is protected by law as you well know, Darren.
    As the ICO said these names have been on court lists for 20 years and have been available by post to newspapers and others for a considerable time.
    Show me some evidence that anyone has been harmed by this procedure and I will happily sign up to your ‘campaign’.
    I don’t believe readers wrote in to express their concern until you shook the wasp’s nest.
    Before that no-one had a clue which shows that the system is working, doesn’t it?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 28, 2011 at 4:35 pm
    Permalink

    So you did go to readers and create this campaign? No one came to you really, did they?

    I’m sure the paper means well but this really isn’t an issue that needs addressing, particularly amid huge cuts to public services, a financial crisis and rising employment figures.

    Ask your readers if they’d prefer you to tackle those issues and help in some way, rather than this pointless quest.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • October 31, 2011 at 12:29 pm
    Permalink

    hacktastic and Pogal, I love the fact that newspapers are not allowed to run stories unless they have first been raised by the readers.
    And heaven forbid any paper that should dare to shake a wasp’s nest (although I thought hornets were usually the target).
    These names have been on the lists for 20 years. So that makes it right then does it? I’m not sure what the email system was like in your areas 20 years ago but it certainly wasn’t very extensive in the Comet area. Times change, technology changes and so do views on matters such as privacy.
    We don’t just need to adapt to the prevailing trends of the economy and technology but we also need to understand that the public are far more senstitive now about the information which is held about them.
    Yes we raised the issue but we have had total agreement from all in our area and that’s all that counts I’m afraid.
    Ok, back to treading on ant’s nests and churning out press releases Pogal, I’m sure the readers will give us a ‘proper’ story one day.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • November 1, 2011 at 8:56 am
    Permalink

    Darren, clearly you are a journalist of high standing so do yourself a favour and stop trying to defend what is a massive non-story that can only have bad implications to our day to day job.
    I repeat, where is the evidence that anyone has ever been affected by the names appearing on a court list to back your campaign?
    You have none.
    Just because you think it is a scandal does not make it one unless you are an editor with no news.
    I suggest entering this one in the campaign of the year category in the next press awards to test your convictions.
    ps
    And your puerile attempt at suggesting that journos only churn out press releases because they don’t back your nonsensical made up campaign is frankly pathetic.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • November 1, 2011 at 9:50 am
    Permalink

    It’s okay hacktastic, I’ve been called worse by PR folk unhappy at the way I churned out their press release, when I clearly should have been focussing on a campaign which could only be entered in the Best ‘coulda-woulda-shoulda-might-happen’ Campaign category of any awards do.

    But in all seriousness, don’t take it so personally Mr Isted. I don’t think the notion your campaign highlights is up for debate, just that it isn’t really an issue. If it had been an issue, ever, you’d have my full support, but it simply isn’t, so you are effectively campaigning for legislation to stop something which you think might, could, happen, but that time has shown is already pretty effectively regulated and has resulted in no identifiable consequences.

    Never a good basis for a campaign in my mind. But as you say, what is news?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • November 1, 2011 at 11:54 am
    Permalink

    Look like we will have to agree to disagree on this.
    Certainly no plans for an awards entry and you may be surprised to learn that HTFP contacted us to run the piece.
    I still stick to the assertion though that as a newspaper all you can do is what you think best for your readers. They have backed me along with MPs, community group leaders etc.
    So far the only complaints have come from anonymous members on a journalism forum.
    I think I can live with that.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • November 2, 2011 at 11:52 am
    Permalink

    Darren I have had a change of heart and think you are amazing. Sorry for questioning your news judgement and I hope you find some stories soon.

    I bid you good day.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)