Candidates performed generally very well on this paper, though marks were not as high as they were last year.

The issues in the law questions were fairly basic – libel, contempt, the identification of young offenders, anonymity for the victims of sexual offences and the PCC code.

These are all issues that are commonplace in newsrooms.

They are also problems which cost newspapers considerable amounts of time and money should a journalist fall foul of them.

Therefore, when dealing with such central issues, the moderator and markers set a high bar for candidates answering the questions.

If they cannot answer these questions comfortably, are they ready to be a senior reporter? Candidates who did not achieve a pass mark generally did not show sufficient understanding of the risks of libel, contempt, anonymity of sex offence victims and the PCC code.

Candidates also lost marks where they failed to demonstrate their understanding of defences, such as qualified privilege, against a libel action.

Some candidates suggested that an official police statement was not covered by qualified privilege, which it is.

Another candidate suggested that the defence would fail because reporting that a magistrate had groomed a child over the internet was 'not in the public interest'.

Some candidates were a little confused over group libel and suggested that all magistrates could sue as a result of this story, which is obviously not the case.

As for the PCC code, candidates sitting the NCE are strongly advised to use the PCC website – www.pcc.org.uk as part of their preparation.

This site not only includes a detailed explanation of the code of practice itself, but also details of recent adjudications.

The chief moderator for newspaper practice pays close attention to this site and recent cases when setting questions.

On the newspaper practice questions, there were some strong performances where candidates demonstrated imagination, thoroughness and professionalism.

Candidates would not be marked down for stating the obvious, such as interviewing the main subject of the story.

It might seem an obvious move, but unless a candidate says they will do it, they cannot be awarded marks for it.

Similarly, if a candidate is suggesting interviewing someone who might be deemed to be unlikely to talk to them, an indication of how they would gain the interview will get them more marks.

Candidates must indicate not only who they would speak to, but also what they would ask them.

An indication of lines of questioning allows markers to gauge what would be made of a story and award more marks accordingly.

They cannot award the marks if no lines of questioning are detailed.

Once again, time management was clearly an issue for some candidates, although perhaps fewer than in previous sittings.

Candidates should keep a close eye on the clock and give themselves enough time to do themselves justice in all the questions, not just the law.

The markers and moderator congratulate those who passed the newspaper practice paper this time and hope this report will assist those who didn't in any future efforts.

Click for more on the:

Submitting Information

Click here to have your say on this story