courts Inquest report victory


Faced with extreme restrictions on the use of inquest recordings, Louise Tickle took action


T


his is a story about not ignoring those niggles journalists sometimes get – the sense you’re being told something


that just isn’t right. Last May, I attended the first two days of a six-day inquest at Hull coroner’s court into the death of a woman who committed suicide after suffering domestic abuse. I couldn’t be in court for the full inquest so I applied for a copy of the recording of the hearing. Although the media isn’t entitled to this as of right, the chief coroner’s guidance, indicates a strong presumption that it will be provided if asked for. It took months to get a decision. I


was to be permitted the recording. But there was a kicker. I would have to sign an undertaking before the Hull coroner would release it. This stipulated: 1. This recording is not to be used for


any purpose other than transcribing for possible legal proceedings or listening to. 2. Any other use of the recording or part of it by copying, publishing, transmitting or broadcasting in any way […] without the consent of the coroner may be a contempt of court punishable with imprisonment. 3. If the recording is used to produce a transcript, the transcript must be shown to the coroner before being used […]. I was baffled. My investigation would


result in a podcast. I needed to transcribe the recording, wanted actors to revoice parts and, as the reporter, to quote things that had been said in


court. Signing this undertaking would mean I could do none of them. That felt all wrong. What is said in open court is reportable. So I emailed the coroner, saying I didn’t think the wording was lawful. I suggested an alternative: ‘The


recording is not to be used for any purpose other than for listening to, for transcribing for possible legal proceedings, or for the accurate reporting and quoting of what took place in open court.’ A few days later, I got a reply, asking me to confirm that I did not intend to ‘re-enact’ any parts of the inquest, as opposed to the coroner’s purpose for releasing the recording, ‘which is merely the accurate reporting of the inquest’. Now I was baffled and cross. I couldn’t understand why I shouldn’t be able to make a transcript for whatever journalistic purpose I wanted, including – given this was a podcast – revoicing it. Everything had been said in public. I needed that recording, but something stopped me signing the undertaking. I thought: let’s ask a lawyer. Paul Bowen KC is a human rights


barrister who has helped me in the past. He very kindly said he would take a look, so I sent over all the correspondence. Within hours, an email landed in my


inbox: “Dear L,” Bowen had written. “So, you may have stumbled across something that is unlawful.” I love these moments. “On the face of it, para 1 of the warning is incorrect,” he wrote. “I think the next


“ 08 | theJournalist


I couldn’t understand why I shouldn’t be able to make a transcript for whatever journalistic purpose I wanted


step is to write to the chief coroner requesting him to review his guidance.” The process was to send a letter before action, pointing to the problems caused by the undertaking and suggesting new wording. If that didn’t work – judicial review. I asked the Hull coroner to reverse her


decision and allow me to report as I saw fit, and the chief coroner to amend his guidance “to permit the use of a transcript of a recording of proceedings provided by a Coroner for journalistic purposes including by reading out or voicing verbatim sections of the transcript as part of a radio broadcast or podcast”. I gave them 14 days to reply. A couple of days before the deadline, the chief coroner emailed: “I concede that this wording is misleading.” There may have been a small squeak


followed by an air punch. The letter went on: “There should be no blanket prohibition in chief coroner guidance on the use of any recording or transcript for the purpose of accurately reporting court proceedings or on the use of actors to voice a transcribed recording to produce a fair and accurate re-enactment for broadcast purposes.” He said he would revise his guidance “to make it clear that these are both legitimate activities”. He also said he would inform the


Hull coroner. She swiftly informed me she had taken note and I could have the recording without the restrictions. I’m incredibly pleased, not only because it means my investigation can go ahead unhindered, but also because now, all journalists reporting on inquests will no longer be constrained on how they can use official records of what took place in open court. I’m also very glad I didn’t brush aside the niggle and sign the undertaking – and beyond grateful for Paul Bowen KC’s advice and support which made this gain for freedom of expression possible.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28