Page 2 of 3

Time and again, examiners were told that to report the relationship as non-sexual would be interpreted by readers as there being "no smoke without fire". Several candidates were convinced that they would have a public duty in these circumstances to "expose" this teacher. Two candidates even suggested asking the police or Crown Prosecution Service whether he had "previous convictions" and was already on the "Paedophile Register".

More than half of those who answered this question said that they would seek to question the teacher face to face and were, of course, rewarded for this. Many wanted to put to him the "allegations". No marks were awarded to candidates for saying they would continue to investigate or publish the allegations if the teacher refuted them. (Do they not know the difference between refute and deny?)

Far too many candidates said they thought there would be no story if they couldn't obtain a privileged statement from the LEA or evidence to justify revealing an improper relationship. The "evidence" that would satisfy some that they were safe to "expose" the teacher should be giving sleepless nights to any prudent editor.

The word ethics in the question rightly alerted most candidates to the Code of Practice endorsed by the PCC and although many thought that this had the force of law, a gratifyingly large percentage of candidates were aware of the guidelines on interviewing minors and regarding harassment.

Most of the candidates tackling Question 2 appeared to be healthily aware that challenges by journalists to suspect restricted reporting orders made by magistrates are being increasingly accepted, if not welcomed by the Bench. Sadly too few were equipped well enough with the legal knowledge to make a successful application. The Contempt of Court Act was regularly quoted instead of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act as grounds for challenging an improper derogatory assertions order.

Question 3 informed candidates that contingency plans were being prepared for the return to this country of British Forces stationed in Germany. A councillor had leaked a confidential letter to all local authorities requesting they make a case for or against the stationing of a major military unit of up to 1,000 service personnel in their area.

Several candidates had difficulty following the instructions, either on the front of the examination paper or in the question itself. There were those who hypothesised about the effects on dear old Oxdown instead of their own town/location. Others wrote most of their answer explaining all they knew about the law of confidentiality although told that their editor had said they were to ignore it.

Next page...