NEWSPAPER PRACTICE
– 259 candidates;
- 177 passed – 68 per cent

In the main candidates showed a sound grasp of the legal implications in the law questions and flair in organising coverage of a TA Reservist demoted in his civilian job after serving in Iraq, a fire authority bent on sacking its station chefs and a survey revealing that one man in six is a victim of domestic violence.

In part A candidates have to answer one of two questions which includes an aspect of media law and is worth half the total marks. Most attempted the question involving a 14-year-old youth who appeared in a youth court for breaching an ASBO. There were strong cases made out for why the youth court should lift section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act.

Candidates pointed out that his name was already in the public domain: section 39 had not been imposed at the earlier (civil) hearing when the ASBO was made; the local council had circulated leaflets on his estate identifying him. The horse had truly bolted and there was a clear public interest in naming the defendant.

Candidates also referred to similar cases where youth courts had lifted section 49, some quoted Home Office guidelines while others quoted Watkins LJ that it would be "illogical" to ban identification of someone whose name was already in the public domain. Only the most perverse of magistrates could remain unconvinced by such persuasive argument.

Not so encouraging were the references by several candidates to "a judge" in the youth court. Usually magistrates preside in youth courts but if not then district judges must be given their full title to distinguish them from other judges thus preserving the newspaper's credibility.

Some candidates were too cautious about using the comments made after the case outside the court. While most spotted there is no privilege others failed to consider the defences of justification and fair comment.

The less popular question involved a proposed court report in a Looking Back (25 years ago) column in which a man was jailed who had the same name as a prospective Parliamentary candidate for the forthcoming general election.

A worrying number of candidates seemed to be unaware of the dangers of reporting past court cases without checking subsequent appeals. Some appeared to assume it would be the same person. Few explained coherently how to report spent convictions.

In Scotland, where 11 candidates took the exam, a football manager facing accusations of corruption from his club's supporters' association was in trouble - unlike the Scottish candidates who deftly dribbled their way through the legalistic machinations of qualified privilege and public meetings with Celtic aplomb.

By part B the quality of the time management of candidates was beginning to show. Candidates who had spent too much time unravelling the (sometimes non-existent) legal mysteries of the part A question found themselves bereft of ideas other than the obvious and sometimes not even those. Candidates who got it right, however, clearly enjoyed the challenge with several demonstrating that should the chief reporter or news editor fall sick for the day then the news room would still be in competent and creative hands.

Click for more on the: