Disclosure of information and media coverage of criminal proceedings
General overview of criminal proceedings
Confidentiality and publicity of criminal proceedings
Exceptions to disclosure rules
Rules governing communication between criminal justice authorities and media
Media coverage of criminal proceedings
Disclosure of information and media coverage of criminal cases in practice
Conclusion: gaps and challenges
The presumption of innocence and the protection of the right to privacy of suspects and accused
Presumption of innocence and media coverage
Media coverage and the right to privacy
Disclosure of personally identifiable information
CAGES, BOXES, HANDCUFFS: THE COERCION OF DEFENDANTS IN ITALIAN AND EUROPEAN COURTS
KHODORKOVSKIY AND LEBEDEV V. RUSSIA, 25 JULY 2013
The Court stated that the positioning in a metal cage, during the hearing, constitutes a degrading treatment.
SVINARENKO AND SLYADNEV V. RUSSIA, 17 JULY 2014
The Court finds no convincing arguments to the effect that, in present-day circumstances, holding a defendant in a cage during a trial is a necessary means of physically restraining him, preventing his escape, dealing with disorderly or aggressive behaviour, or protecting him against aggression from outside. Its continues practice can therefore hardly be understood otherwise than as a means of degrading and humiliating the caged person. The object of humiliating and debasing the person held in a cage during a trial is this apparent.
YAROSLAV BELOUSOV V. RUSSIA, 4 OCTOBER 2016
The Court clarified that degrading treatment always applies to metal cages, but for glass or plexiglass boxes it is necessary to assess other elements (duration of placement, size, mode of communication with one’s client and others). The Court also condemned Russia for violating Article 3 of the Convention (prohibiting torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) due to the placement of the accused inside a glass box. The Court found violation of the accused’s right to defence, guaranteed by Article 6(3)(b) and (c).
VALYUZHENICH V. RUSSIA, 26 MARCH, 2019
The Court ruled that in violation of Article 3 it constitutes degrading treatment to detain the applicant in a metal cage during the hearings of the criminal trial, in which he is a defendant, with the consequent compression of his right of defence, given the impossibility of conferring with his/her lawyer, and with the humiliating effect of appearing to be a dangerous criminal, in violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. Once again, the Court underlines the humiliating effect on the defendant, and reception of the defendant as a “dangerous criminal”.
MEDIA COVERAGE OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The scope of application Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights
The relationship with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Overview of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights
Capacity of the person making the statement
Choice of words
Overview of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights
Examples of violation and non-violation of Article 6(2)
THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA IN THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF TERRORIST OFFENCES
The Boston bombing
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND MEDIA COVERAGE OF GLORIFICATION OF TERRORISM CASES
The controversial crime of glorifying terrorism
An exploration of glorification of terrorism media coverage
PUBLICITY ETHICS IN HIGH-PROFILE CASES
The defendant’s perspective
GOOGLE SPAIN SL & GOOGLE INC. V. THE SPANISH DATA PROTECTION REGULATOR AND MARIO COSTEJA GONZÁLEZ 
In 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgement, which practically marked the beginning of the recognition of the legal right to be forgotten in the EU. The judgement was delivered in response to a request for a preliminary ruling made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. and, on the other, the Spanish Data Protection Agency (Agencia Española de Protección de Datos) and Mr Costeja González. The proceedings concerned a decision by the Spanish Data Protection Agency upholding the complaint lodged by Mr Costeja González against those two companies and ordering Google Inc. to withdraw personal data relating to Mr Costeja González from its index and to prevent access to the data in the future. The request for withdrawal was justified by the argument that the data were “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to those purposes [for which they were collected or processed] in the light of the time that has elapsed”. The case raised a number of questions concerning the balance of rights, the responsibility of search engines as information providers, as well as the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Justice given the differences in legislation between countries (the EU and the USA where Google Inc. had its seat).
GOOGLE LLC V. THE FRENCH DATA PROTECTION REGULATOR CNIL 
In a similar case, in 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgement in response to a request for preliminary ruling made in proceedings between Google LLC (successor in law to Google Inc.) and the French Data Protection Authority (Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés). The proceedings concerned a financial penalty imposed on Google by the French Data Protection Authority because of the company’s refusal to remove from search results information about the criminal investigations against four persons (including business and political figures) with the argument that the information was of public interest. In this case, the Court of Justice ruled that the scope of this right was territorially limited to the 28 EU member states and information could not be delisted globally. The case led to Google introducing a geo-blocking system that prevented access to data from specific regions.
The justice authorities’ perspective
The media’s perspective
THE TRIAL OF O.J SIMPSON 
The increasing media exposure of criminal cases reached what is perceived as its “peak” in 1994 in the United States with the murder trial against the former football star and later a broadcaster O.J. Simpson. The trial is often assessed as “media circus”, but at the same time it is also viewed as one of the strongest game changing events that raised a number of ethical issues related to the operation of the criminal justice system, the media and the society in general. The media coverage of the trial exceeded the coverage of many of the world events taking place at that time. The media were closely involved in the case and followed all steps of the investigation and the trial, even including a live stream of the car chase leading to Simpson’s arrest, in which reporters in helicopters were searching the area ahead of the police. The live stream was watched by an estimated number of some 95 million viewers and there is evidence that part of the audience was actually supporting Simpson encouraging him to escape from the authorities. Simpson was then perp-walked to the police allowing the media to report extensively on the event. Simpson himself wrote a public letter the evening before he had to surrender to the police, explaining his view on the murder and enouncing a “last wish”. During the trial, some of the evidence of Simpson’s guilt weredismissed by the court because of being compromised by the extensive media coverage. A presumably essential witness was not allowed to testify, because she had sold her story to a tabloid. The indictment hearing was cancelled due to intensive media interest. At later stage, the trial was broadcasted by a CCTV camera on a so-called Court TV channel for 134 days. The judge was later criticised for allowing cameras in the courtroom under the pressure of the media publicity. As the trial was drawing to a close, the authorities became increasingly afraid of outburst of riots if Simpson was found guilty. In October 1995, Simpson was acquitted.
Later on, most of the participants in the trial published books discussing their own points of view on the case: jurors, defense team members, witnesses, police officers, prosecutors, even forensic experts.
The unseen before publicity divided the public on racial grounds provoking a huge debate about racism and unequal treatment of people of colour in the justice system.
Theories continued to emerge long after the end of the trial and a number of documentaries on the case were released with interviews with participants in the process. By 2020, more than ten media developed the case into films, series and documentaries. O.J. Simpson even became a character in computer games.