AddThis SmartLayers

Business editor given fine and non-harassment order in stalking case

A senior journalist on a flagship Scottish newspaper has been fined and given a three-year non-harassment order after being found guilty of stalking his former girlfriend.

The Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday business editor Terry Murden had previously been in a relationship with PR consultant Nicki Sturzaker.

A court heard last month that Murden sent unwanted gifts, notes and repeated emails after the pair split and contacted her employers and had written about her in his newspapers.

The 57-year-old journalist’s employers – Johnston Press – have confirmed an internal inquiry, which began following his conviction, has not yet been concluded.

“These investigations are still ongoing,” said a spokeswoman for the regional publishers of The Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday who refused to comment on speculation surrounding his position at the publications after defence solicitor Jim Stephenson said the conviction could have serious consequences for his employment.

Sheriff Donald Corke handed out a £500 fine plus the non-harassment order when Murden appeared before him for sentencing today at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

The sheriff said: “The offence of which you were found guilty is a statutory offence of stalking and the fear and alarm you caused Ms Sturzaker is your responsibility, not hers.”

Ms Sturzaker, who worked for PR firm the Big Partnership, told an earlier court that a few months after she ended their relationship Murden had sent her an email saying he was going to make direct contact with her clients.

“I panicked because I felt it was blackmail and would affect my job,” she said.

She also told the court that a week after she left the Big Partnership, Murden had published two articles about her departure which she thought was an abuse of his position as business editor.

Between July and October 2013 Ms Sturzaker said she received 15 emails from Murden and contacted the police

However Murden said the accusation that he had cost her her job was totally unfounded.

His solicitor Jim Stephenson said at the trial:  “Mr Murden had no idea he was committing an offence. He told the police he was hoping for a reconciliation”.

“He was trying to re-establish a personal and professional relationship. It was not his intention to cause fear and alarm”.

The procurator fiscal, Arlene Shaw, told the earlier court Murden’s actions had had “a huge impact” on Ms Sturzaker’s life. “She felt threatened. Could not get on with her life,” she said.

“She felt the accused was obsessed with her, behaving irrationally and erratically towards her and this had a profound impact on her life.”

Mr Stephenson said his client’s relationship with his wife was quite strong and added: “I understand that they live separately, but it may well be there could be reconciliation”.

18 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • August 19, 2014 at 10:49 am
    Permalink

    This raises a general point about court reporting.
    Because of understaffing weekly papers especially rely a lot on press handouts after the case from police and councils.
    These seldom contain the other side of the story or any form of mitigation and as such surely are not the required “fair and balanced” reports required by law.
    The same probably applies to the short results of court cases listed in papers, which sometimes do not even record the person pleaded not guilty, let alone mitigation .
    Although statements issued by police carry some privilege in certain cases I wonder if that is sufficient to protect papers and website owners from a complaint of unfair reporting?
    Perhaps someone with detailed legal knowledge might explain.
    I suspect papers avoid complaints because solicitors are not well up on journalism law.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 19, 2014 at 10:52 am
    Permalink

    Terry, I do hope you have got the message that she doesn’t want any contact with you and move on with your life.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 19, 2014 at 11:45 am
    Permalink

    Can anyone help me with general legal issue that this brings to mind.
    How safe are court reports based solely on statements AFTER the case, in some case days after, by police and other authorities.
    This is a very common thing now that weekly papers in particular do not have enough staff to cover local courts, and rely on police statements afterwards.
    The problem in my mind is that these are not fair or balanced as the law requires. They do not give the other side of the story or the mitigation.
    I imagine the same might apply to the short briefs of court results that some papers run, but I am no legal expert. It has always worried me as a reporter but does not seem to worry my superiors. I know police statements have some privelege but not if they are a report on a court case that is unbalanced. (By the way this is not the fault of police. It is not their job to do the paper’s job for them).
    Although slightly different Mr Murden’s case does raise the potential legal hazards of publishing courts reports when no reporter is there.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 19, 2014 at 12:31 pm
    Permalink

    “Although slightly different Mr Murden’s case does raise the potential legal hazards of publishing courts reports when no reporter is there.”

    From a technical perspective legalegal it’s Murden, not Mr Murden 😉

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 19, 2014 at 1:27 pm
    Permalink

    Digipaul i think illegaleagle was correct with Mr Murden rather than Murden in the context of a HTFP discussion rather than court report but its a minor point and the main question raised on court reports from cops is a valid one. Anyone out there got a definitive answer? Then I can sleep safely!

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 19, 2014 at 1:56 pm
    Permalink

    In short, hackwatcher, court reports that come from official police statements attract ‘qualified privilege’, as long as they are ‘fair and accurate, and published without malice’. They should also ‘be a matter of public interest’ and ‘for the public benefit’, which can almost always be argued to be the case with court reports.

    In short, you’re OK as long as you get the facts right and don’t publish to get your own back!

    On top of that, to rely on qualified privilege, a publisher can be required to publish a ‘reasonable letter or statement by way of explanation or contradiction’, a good example being the comment Htfp have published from Terry Murden on this trail.

    If a paper manages to be in court itself to gather facts for a report, it of course has ‘absolute privilege’, as long as that report is ‘fair and accurate’ and ‘published contemporaneously’.

    The main difference is that with ‘qualified privilege’, you are only expected to be ‘fair and accurate’ in your report of what the official police statement says. If that police statement itself is unfair or inaccurate, you still have that qualified privilege (and it would be the police who might be in hot water, not you).

    Conclusion: you’re OK publishing ‘court reports from cops’, but make sure it’s based on an official statement (not hearsay or verbal descriptions).

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 19, 2014 at 2:14 pm
    Permalink

    It’s important to arrive at the best way to refer to a defendant in a comment about a court report. Given illegaleagle was giving him/herself journalistic airs and graces I thought they should have dropped the ‘Mr’. However I’m happy to be corrected on this.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 19, 2014 at 2:41 pm
    Permalink

    Yeah I really think the important issue here is whether we address him as Mr or not.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 19, 2014 at 3:09 pm
    Permalink

    Steve: I wish people like you would stop using the expression “get the facts right.” Facts, by definition, are true and therefore do not need qualifying.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 19, 2014 at 3:40 pm
    Permalink

    All facts are, of course, ‘true’, Observer. But the phrase ‘get the facts right’ means ‘use the facts which are correct (ie pertinent) in this situation, not the facts which are not.’

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 19, 2014 at 4:50 pm
    Permalink

    I don’t want to descend too far into pedantry, Observer, but…

    An official police statement about a court case may make assertions and a journalist has qualified privilege to use these as ‘facts’ in a report. But the journalist must check that he’s used the supposed ‘facts’ correctly. Eg, if the police statement says ‘John Smith’ when the true spelling is ‘Jon Smyth’, the journalist is not wrong – he has got the facts as given by the police statement correct, even if they’re incorrect. Hence the importance of underlining the need to get the ‘facts’ (as given) right.

    I think that’s what I mean, anyway!

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 19, 2014 at 10:03 pm
    Permalink

    No Steve, you are not correct. Just because some information is presented in court it does not mean that it is factual. It is simply wrong information. It may be excusable to present that information in a report if that is what was given in court but nothing can make something which is not true into a fact. I say again, facts by definition are true. Errors are errors and can never be facts. This is not being pedantic, it is acknowledging the proper meaning of the word.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 20, 2014 at 9:48 am
    Permalink

    I think Onlooker’s comment solves this, Observer. I’m not doubting your dictionary definition of ‘fact’ as a word. But there’s an important distinction in the law we’re discussing when covering what an official police statement asserts as fact. Get those facts right – accurately reporting what the police have said – and you get qualified privilege, even if their assertions end up being incorrect.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 20, 2014 at 2:02 pm
    Permalink

    This is my last word, honestly. You cannot assert anything as fact. You can make an assertion sure enough. But that does not make it a factual assertion. If you report something that was said accurately, that still does not make it a fact. It is repeating an error, however unwittingly. Qualified privilege has nothing to do it.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 20, 2014 at 6:44 pm
    Permalink

    Yes, but the relevant point is that journalists rely on police ‘facts’ about court cases, thanks to qualified privilege.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • August 20, 2014 at 10:50 pm
    Permalink

    Thanks steve. I am not convinced a police summary is a fair report of a court case if it does not give at least part of the accused person’s defence or mitigation, but I take your points.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)