A police press office breached a court reporting restriction in a press release which was subsequently picked up by local newspapers.
Sussex Police included a domestic abuse victim’s new home address in a court report which appeared on its website.
The banned detail was deleted from the report once the error was realised but not before local papers had picked it up, according to Press Gazette.
The force has defended publishing the release, saying it did so “in good faith”.
A spokeswoman said: “We had previously checked with the court and the officer in the case about whether a restriction had been imposed about publishing the defendant’s address and had been told there was no restriction.
We published the press release about the sentencing in good faith, but were then informed that a restriction had been made banning the publication of the defendant’s address.
“As soon as this was known, we deleted the address from the press release, updated it to this effect and informed the media.”
Sussex Police has also come under fire over claims its coverage of a sex abuse case caused the jigsaw identification of the victims.
Freelance journalist Barry Keevins, who was present for the case and had successfully opposed a blanket reporting restriction, had agreed with the court what would and would not be mentioned in his reporting of the trial.
However, the force published different information in its release, and a story about the case was later published by Brighton daily The Argus as well as a national newspaper.
Sussex Police said it had complied with all relevant legislation but was “clearly not bound by any agreements that individual journalists may have arranged amongst themselves without consulting anyone else”.
The spokeswoman added: “In the sexual offence case, we and the CPS considered that we complied with the law and with an additional court order made during the trial.
“The officer in the case, who supplied the information to the press office, was present throughout the trial and was informed of the court order, and we consider that the information published does not enable a ‘jigsaw effect’ identification.
“If there are concerns about information in a particular case allegedly being published in contravention of the law or any additional court orders, these should be taken up with the court. We are not aware that this has happened in this case.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
I could easily sit here and laugh at the Bizzies’ cock up, but for the fact I don’t find it funny coverage of court cases is now being managed by people with no training to do so.
The most appalling thing about this situation for me, is that titles published without checking and are now also at fault. Granted the defendant’s address is something you’d normally publish as a matter of course, but surely these titles, The Argus in particular being a significant media outlet, would get court circulars with details of listings and reporting restrictions imposed?
With no reporters to go to court, no subs to check copy, is it any wonder these errors keep happening?
Report this comment
A police press release has qualified privilege and a paper is entitled to treat it as a reliable source. But the wider issue is why Plod is getting involved in this sort of stuff in the first place.
The reason is their emphasis has shifted from recording, detecting and solving crime to managing the perception of it. They publicise these things to boost their image and to give the impression they are active and effective in the fields that push the social media buttons – abuse, hate crime, sex crime etc. In reality, they are just treading water, or sinking.
They do their own publicity, and consequently get into hot water Ike this, because papers no longer have the resources or the will to do it for them. But this reputation management is now as or more important to Plod than crime solving. When I have been burgled no real attempt has ever been made to solve the crime, but a lot of effort has gone into “customer caring” the victim.
Report this comment
Reminds me of the time a judge in an eight week child abuse trial spent every day reminding reporters about the dangers of jigsaw identification and protecting the children, making it clear he was combing reports for potential breaches. Then, on sentencing, published his comments online, clearly identifying the victims as the children of the defendants. Some of us tried to point it out through his office. Not sure he ever got the message but I believe the comments remain online to this day.
Report this comment
Oh and Idle Rich – qualified privilege relates to defamation, it has nothing to do with contempt.
Report this comment
On a tangent I know, but it has been pointed out before on HTFP court reports are supposed to fair and balanced. Police reports , although usually accurate and issue in good faith, present only side of the case ( the prosecution) and usually no mitigation at all, giving a skewed picture. This is not the fault of the police; any self-respecting paid-for paper should cover cases in person instead of relying on handouts. Perhaps someone who knows a bit more about the law could inform me why no defence lawyer has ever picked up this point.
Report this comment
oops left out a “be” before fair and balanced and a “one” before side of the case. where can I find a sub?
Report this comment