Talk:Scottish Justice Secretary 'acutely aware of unusual publicity' in Kular case

Active discussions

OR NotesEdit

First, obviously, I extensively drew on the related news for background details. Here's the PDF of the letter MacAskill sent to Lamont, who emailed the PDF on to me:


In addition, I've drawn from two emails Brian acquired from law experts at the time of publication, not immediately used:

From Prof Chalmers:

Dear Mr McNeil,

I don't think I can add much to what you have said on your website, but I would mention that the statement on the BBC College of Journalism website is too broad. It may be a contempt of court to create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to someone's right to a fair trial. A photograph *might* do this in a case where identification is an issue; on the face of it, that does not seem especially likely in this case, but it is impossible to know for certain at this point. The courts have said that the only safe route to avoid committing a contempt is to avoid publishing a photograph, but that does not mean that publishing a photograph is automatically a contempt.

Best wishes,
James Chalmers
--
Professor James Chalmers
University of Glasgow School of Law

From Prof Ferguson:

Only just got your email! Tied up with teaching all day, today. Hope you found someone to comment on this. The journalists do seem to be walking a dangerous line if publishing photos etc of suspects.

Professor Pamela R. Ferguson
Professor of Scots Law
School of Law
University of Dundee
Dundee
DD1 4HN
Scotland
UK

All emails forwarded to scoop. I forget the exact date but I received the letter 2-3 days ago. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 13:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

LamontEdit

It occurs to me I may have neglected to include sourcing for John's employment history (former justice spokesman). This ought to cover it. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 15:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2395557 [Passed]Edit

Return to "Scottish Justice Secretary 'acutely aware of unusual publicity' in Kular case" page.