The media are not entitled to a copy of all inquest material used in open court.

That is the controversial ruling of the Coroner dealing with the 7/7 bombings inquest.

Lady Justice Hallett, presiding over the proceedings, decided she had a “discretion” to control the release and further publication of video footage of the bloody aftermath of the attacks, which had been shown publicly in open court.

The footage in question was a partially-edited version of a video of the 7/7 carnage, revealing scenes as they were with deceaseds’ bodies still present.

It showed victims’ belongings and bloodstains but had been pixellated so that bodies could not be seen precisely.

A barrister representing a number of media organisations argued that where a document, photograph or video is used in open court the media have a right to a copy of it for publication save where rare exceptions apply, for example the demands of national security or a pressing social need.

He said this applied to all publicly-heard court proceedings, whether criminal, inquest or civil, and there was no statutory or common law power for the Coroner to restrict press access to a copy of material used in open court.

Editors would ensure publication was handled appropriately, he said, and it was not for the Coroner to prevent the release of such information.

There were actually three editions of the video in existence: a full unedited version which no one suggested should be used in open court or further published, the contentious partially-edited version, and a third more heavily-edited version which did not show personal belongings or bloodstains and had already been placed on the inquest’s website.

Some representatives of bereaved families felt a copy of the partially-edited version used in open court should be released to the press so that the full horror could be known and understood.

Others vehemently opposed its further publication.

The Metropolitan Police argued the partially-edited footage could be manipulated by terrorists to glorify terrorism and that further publication would cause distress to victims’ families.

Lady Justice Hallett said she did not have time to “give a lengthy exposition of the law” but felt she had a discretion to control the further publication of the material.

She said no case law had been drawn to her attention which established that the media were entitled to a copy of absolutely any document produced in publicly-heard proceedings.

“I must have the ability properly and proportionately to control my own proceedings and to limit the distress caused to others, provided, of course, I do not inhibit unnecessarily or disproportionately full, fair and effective reporting,” she said.

“I would also have thought I should have the power to prevent the provision of unnecessary aid to terrorists, even if the threat falls short of a threat to national security.”

She added: “As it seems to me, the law is clear. I have a discretion as to the publication and/or release of this material. The fact that a document is referred to in court or even exhibited does not mean in my view that the media have a right to a copy of it, as opposed to a right to report it, describe it and comment upon it, and nor does it mean that I am obliged to have the document published on the public website.”

She said even if she were wrong and she had no such discretion, she would still rule that it was necessary and proportionate to protect the interests and privacy of the bereaved families and survivors by curtailing further publication beyond the confines of the open court.

She was “acutely conscious” of the right of the media to attend and report on the proceedings and to have access to “all relevant information”, but sufficient information had been released and there was nothing to stop the media describing the partially-edited footage in words, if they wished.

She said this was her ruling “for the time being”, but the parties would free to discuss matters further.

On a point of principle, the ruling is worrying because of the apparent lack of clarity of the legal basis and scope of the Coroner’s purported discretion as to the release and publication of material used in open court.