The Letby murder trial at Manchester Crown Court has taken many months and, quite understandably, the jury took several weeks to come to its verdicts. The shock and horror of this case is of the greatest magnitude. Sentence is to be passed on Monday, and we should all look to the Learned Trial Judge’s remarks as the definitive account of the scale and depth of this criminality.
In this case, a decision was made to impose news reporting restrictions about the identities of some of the prosecution witnesses. Mr Justice Goss is an extremely able and experienced High Court criminal Judge, and I have no doubt that he will have weighed up these matters very carefully indeed after the initial pre-trial decision to do this was made by Mrs Justice Steyn, and will have continued to do so throughout the trial.
However, the decision may now have a negative impact on the ability of the press to report an accurate version of events. If, as the lead consultant in the neonatal unit where she worked now alleges, hospital bosses failed to investigate allegations against Letby and tried to silence doctors, and that he raised concerns in October 2015, after some children had already been killed, the ability of the press to name victims would allow the public to understand a full timeline of events.
This notion alone should prompt reflection on the role of reporting restrictions in the trial process.
The principle of open justice is fundamental to our system – it reflects the principle that justice must be seen to be done. The overwhelming general presumption is that the names of witnesses and defendants are matters of public record, available for use by the media. Public knowledge of, and confidence in, the administration of justice is enhanced by accurate and comprehensive media reporting. Clear and accurate national and local news reporting of our courts is part of the lifeblood of journalism in the UK.
In last year’s Judicial College Guide to Reporting Restrictions in the Crown Courts, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett wrote: “It is a central principle of criminal justice that the court sits in public so that the proceedings can be observed by members of the public and reported on by the media. Transparency improves the quality of justice…and bolsters public confidence in the justice system. Media reporting is critical to all these public interest functions.” He is right.
The court must be satisfied that the quality of the evidence or the witness’s co-operation with the preparation of the case is likely to be diminished by reason of fear or distress in connection with identification by the public as a witness.
The court must balance the interests of justice against the public interest in not imposing a substantial and unreasonable restriction. It was this provision that was used in the Letby case. I support the need for restrictions in certain cases and have publicly argued that there should be a wider judicial discretion to prevent the details of some adult suspects and defendants from being made public during the criminal justice process, for example where a person of good character is accused of an offence that would have a devastating impact upon their life even before any verdict was reached.
The starting point, however, must be open justice. Much more should always be required before reporting restrictions are imposed, or we risk more criminal trials being veiled by an impenetrable shroud of secrecy.
