The Presumption of Innocence and the Media Coverage of Criminal Cases - Page 5 of 23

Author and contributors

The examination of twelve criminal cases in four different EU Member States has shed light on various patterns and common malpractices of media practitioners and public authorities. International non-legal instruments providing recommendations and guidance on communicating information about criminal proceedings to the public include standards that address two main audiences:
1) public authorities such as law enforcement agencies and judicial practitioners, and
2) media practitioners and journalists.

The selected criminal cases are analysed in the context of the recommended standards for communicating information on ongoing criminal cases with the aim to demonstrate gross and widespread misconducts or negligence in relation to the presumption of innocence.

Overly extensive media coverage on criminal cases is not a particularly new phenomenon – the term “trial by media” was introduced for the first time in the late 20th century to describe the process whereby the media “interfered” in the legal process by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence in relation to a defendant before the verdict.

Author of analysis:
Maria Stoyanova, CSD

Case studies authors:
Maria Doichinova, CSD
Srinjana Michelle, CSD
Dr. Maria Anagnostaki, CECL
Carolina Antonucci, Associazione Antigone
Lorenzo Iorianni, Associazione Antigone
Claudio Paterniti Martello, Associazione Antigone
Alessio Scandurra, Associazione Antigone
Elena Beatriz Fernández Castejón, Miguel Hernández University
Dr. Jesús Carreras Aguerri, Miguel Hernández University.

Editorial board:
Dimitar Markov, CSD
Ruslan Stefanov, CSD
Todor Galev, CSD

The absence of international instruments prescribing that media outlets observe human rights, including the presumption of innocence in publications covering pending criminal cases, has opened space for the establishment of malicious practices of journalists aiming to increase their viewer and readership. Self-regulation is not always sufficient to provide the necessary sanctions in case of violation of ethical rules of journalism that implies guilt for a person that is not sentenced yet.

This report aims to illustrate the effects of excessive and uncontrolled publicity of criminal cases on basic human rights, such as fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and the right to private life, and to explore ways in which the latter could be balanced against the freedom of speech and the right to information.

Free and independent media is essential for modern democracies, but at the same time, if improperly conducted, it may undermine the rule of law by assuming powers authorised only and solely to a court of law – to issue judgements on a person’s guilt of committing a crime. Indeed, the media is not able to impose coercive sanctions and punishments, but it has the power to shape and influence public opinion and attitudes. In turn, the negative implications for suspects’ and accused people’s lives associated with extensive publicity might be substantial and range from hindering their re-integration and rehabilitation, to putting pressure on judges and jury to rule according to public expectations. In a broader context, the impact on the wider society should be noted, including effects such as the rise of discrimination, harassment, hate speech and the reinforcement of stereotypes about certain vulnerable social groups.

As a principle, governments and public authorities, as representatives of the State, have the obligation to protect, respect and fulfill human rights. Disclosure of information about criminal proceedings is essential for the public to enjoy their right to information. However, disclosure should not be limitless and it is the law that prescribes which types of data can be made accessible to the general public and in which situations disclosure of detailed personal information about a suspect or an accused person is allowed. Nevertheless, police and judicial authorities do not always follow the rules to the letter. There are cases where they might reveal information such as names, age and photos at the early stages of criminal proceedings, which might not be strictly necessary for the purposes of the investigation. It also happens that public authorities, including prosecutors, the police, and government officials, make public statements on the guilt of a defendant prior to their conviction. When citing these as coming from official sources, the media might disseminate this assumption, which the public then might take for granted.

This report is a product of the common efforts of the ARISA project team.

Author and contributors

STAY IN TOUCH