Harassment laws concern for journalists

Some disturbing developments in the United Kingdom have raised questions about the freedom of the press and the possibility of journalists facing criminal action for simply doing their job.

The Chief Reporter of the Croydon Advertiser, Gareth Davies, was served with a Prevention of Harassment Notice by police after he tried to contact a convicted fraudster, Neelam Desai as part of his investigation into a series of dating website scams.

He said he had visited her home once and in following weeks sent two politely-worded emails asking for comment.

Ms Desai apparently complained to the police who handed Davies the harassment notice, usually reserved for cases involving domestic disputes or for offences such as stalking. 

Davies was told by police who served the notice that being a journalist did not give him special privileges and “just doing a job is what brought down the News of the World” – a reference to the now defunct Sunday newspaper’s role in the phone hacking scandal.

In a separate development, an attempt to stop Northern Ireland’s Sunday World from publishing a story about a man’s alleged links to a banned terrorist group went all the way to the High Court before it was thrown out.

The man had also sought to use the harassment legislation to stop publication, but in this case the judge said the newspaper could proceed because it had “legitimate information concerning serious criminal activity”.

The Croydon Advertiser case has caused a storm among newspaper publishers and human rights groups with the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers in Paris saying it was “an embarrassment to the authorities and damaged the international reputation of the UK”.

The legal director of the human rights group Liberty, James Welch, said police should be wary of discouraging good journalistic practices with these “chilling” warnings.

Also worth noting is the decision by a coroner not to name a man who had died of a drink and drug overdose on the grounds that he had an unusual surname and that children related to him might be put at risk. This is despite UK legislation covering coroner’s  inquests which states they should be held in public except in cases affecting national security and that the first act of an inquest should be to establish the deceased’s identity.

Another coroner apparently told an expert witness: “the press are here so you had better be careful about what you say.”

It seems that in the wake of the Leveson Report following the News International phone hacking scandal, UK public officials are going to inordinate lengths to “protect” individuals from the media, certain to be heartily welcomed by anyone with something to hide.

In the Croydon Advertiser’s case the complaint of an individual already convicted of fraud, with numerous charges made against her by people who alleged they had lost substantial amounts of money because of her actions, should have given the police pause.

In Australia the current emphasis on privacy, largely as a result of problems associated with social media, could well provide a cloak for individuals and organisations with things to hide from investigative reporters.

I am certainly not suggesting the media are above the law, but officialdom should remember the countless cases when the work of dedicated professional journalists “just doing their job” has brought to light wrongdoings that would otherwise have gone unpunished.