The Malaysian Bar - Linked to a crime

Home

News

Legal/General News

Linked to a crime

Tuesday, 10 January 2012 09:06am

©The Star (Used by permission)
Articles of law by BHAG SINGH

Can a person whose name has been dragged into a criminal wrongdoing allegedly committed by a loved one, do anything to protect himself?

ANYTHING said by another which embarrasses or damages a person’s good name, comes within the sphere of the law of defamation. It is a subject of much interest to me and I have on different occasions written about its diverse facets.

A reader wrote in to say that his name had been dragged into a news item which was published arising out of a crime which was alleged to have been committed by his son.

I shall hereafter refer to the person dragged in on account of the actual involvement of a child, sibling, spouse, relative or a friend as a “connected person”. Such a person may no doubt feel aggrieved at being dragged in.

Our reader asked if there is any law that allows him to prevent this from happening or to take any action if it did. Of course, being associated with such a case can be cause for concern.

Is it wrong?

Whether it is wrong to do so and to what extent depends very much on the circumstances and the manner in which the event took place and is reported or broadcast. It also depends on the personality involved.

At times a report may be legally in breach of the law, in which case there would be remedies by the aggrieved party having recourse to the courts.

In other cases, what is said may not be to the liking of the person referred to, though it may not be a breach of the law. However, it may be considered from the point of view of the aggrieved person and the general public, to be unfair and perhaps better avoided.

Of course, mention of a connected person in the context of a criminal wrongdoing by his child, sibling, spouse or friend, may be defamatory if the name is mentioned in a way which suggests that such a person is in some way directly or indirectly responsible for or associated with the crime.

If this happens, then the connected person who in reality is in no way involved in the wrongdoing, would be fully entitled to claim that he has been defamed. If this happens, he would be entitled to relief in the courts for damage and an injunction from further repetition.

However, if the report or broadcast merely mentions the person as having a specific relationship but does not involve any wrongdoing on his part, then the mere mention by reason of the relationship will not be defamatory. The matter is then beyond the courts.

Outside the law and the courts, it is a matter of how journalists deal with such situations. There are textbooks and lectures on ethics which journalists are exposed to during their college or university days.

In other cases, the publisher may have its own code of ethics which is written down or passed on through personal contact at different levels within the organisation.

Grievances

In the absence of any organised independent structure to deal with such grievances, the matter could be taken up with the publisher or broadcaster directly. There the matter would end if no satisfactory resolution is reached.

Journalists or broadcasters may in many cases choose to be voluntarily governed by a code that provides guidance on the publication of content that is considered offensive or unacceptable even though not contrary to the law as such.

In some countries, there may be created through enactment, bodies that will regulate such content.

In other cases, journalists may themselves set up a body to self-regulate such matters. Or, as stated earlier, there may not be such arrangements in place at all.

An example of self-regulation is provided by the Editors Code of Conduct in the United Kingdom which deals with matters that are not strictly prohibited by the law but which, on an ethical basis, are considered to be unacceptable. The Code is administered by an independent body called the Press Complaints Commission.

The UK Editors Code of Practice 2001, for example, provides that “relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story”.

The purpose of this provision, according to the Editor’s Code Book by Ian Beales “is designed to protect innocent people from being caught unnecessarily in the publicity spotlight”.

The writer goes on to say that “relatives or friends should not be named unless they are genuinely relevant to the story or where there is reason to publish in the public interest”.

An example is provided by a case involving the well-known Chelsea captain.

In the case of John Terry vs The Sun, Terry who was at the material time the England soccer captain, complained about both the mocking tone and the “irrelevant” relationship in a series of articles in The Sun revealing that both his mother and mother-in-law had been cautioned for shoplifting.

Public domain

The Press Complaints Commission said the soccer star’s relationship with the two women – for whom he provided financially – was firmly established in the public domain.

The fact that they had stolen items from stores sponsoring the English team, of which he was the public face, established the relevance. The claim was rejected.

However, it is not always that a complaint by a public figure is not upheld. In Lacey vs Eastbourne Gazette, a front-page report focused on a councillor whose son was accused of a serious drink-driving offence.

While the Press Complaints Commission accepted that there was public interest in naming the councillor because of her prominence and the fact that she had attended court with her son, it ruled that no public interest had been served by the story being focused so predominantly on her. The complaint was upheld.

Apart from whether the relative has consented to being named or whether such involvement is really necessary to the story, or whether it is in the public interest, another important factor is whether the focus on such person is proportionate to his involvement or relationship.

Of course, the well-known John Terry is always of interest to the public. According to a recent report, he is considering legal action after his picture appeared on cigarette packets in India.

A blurred image of a person looking very much like Terry was included above a “smoking kills” warning.

Of course, this involves different legal issues and could be the subject of discussion on a different occasion.

Set as favourite

Email This