Some of you may already be aware of the tragic case of Bijan Ebrahimi, the Bristol man who was murdered by a neighbour following a campaign of abuse sparked by false allegations that Mr Ebrahimi was a paedophile.

Some of you may even be aware that the video footage recently exhibited in Bristol Crown Court as part of the Prosecution case against 3 police officers and a PCSO for wilful neglect in public office, has now been released to the media.

What is unlikely, however, is that very many of you will know just how close this material came to being withheld from the media, contrary to the overriding objective of transparency in the criminal justice system.

Last week, the News Editor at the Bristol Post told me that despite his repeated requests to Avon and Somerset Police and the IPCC to release copies of said audio and visual material, those requests had been refused. The Post had been told that the only way to progress this matter was to appeal the decision to the CPS.

Such requests are governed by the Publicity and the Criminal Justice System protocol, produced by ACPO in conjunction with the CPS and the Media, which was published in October 2005. The stated aim of the Protocol is to “ensure greater openness in the reporting of criminal proceedings” and to “provide an open and accountable prosecution process, by ensuring that the media have access to all relevant material wherever possible, and at the earliest possible opportunity.”

Granted, the type of material being requested by the Post fell into the category of material which “may be released after consideration by the CPS in consultation with the Police and relevant victims, witnesses and family members”, but in the circumstances, given that the Defendants concerned are members of the force, we questioned how objective such consultations could be.

The leading legal authority on this kind of problem is from 2012, involving a challenge made by The Guardian. As a result, the default position is now that where material (including video footage and sound recordings) has been placed before a judge and referred to in the course of proceedings, the media is entitled to have access to that material, especially where it is sought for proper journalistic purposes.

In his judgment in the Guardian case, Lord Justice Toulson said that “where issues of public interest are raised, non parties should be permitted access to documents…unless good reasons can be shown”. In view of the subject matter of the proceedings in question in Bristol, it was difficult to imagine any subject that could have been more in the public interest.

In light of all the above, it was apparent that the Post had a strong case for overturning the decision to withhold the material. The relevant arguments were sent to the CPS directly, and rather remarkably, the CPS replied within a matter of hours to confirm that the IPCC would make arrangements to provide the media with access to the material immediately.

Although this was the first time that I or my colleagues had encountered this kind of situation, we knew that the entitlement was well established and should never have been refused in the first place without the requisite good reason.

The key to the success in gaining access to the material was that the team at the Post were clear on what their rights were, were able to flag this up, and with good teamwork between journalists and lawyers, an undesirable precedent was prevented from being set.

The message, therefore, is simple – when it comes to material referenced in open court, know your rights and use them!