BBC Fined £28,000 for Contempt of Court

Any competent journalist should know, without having to stop to think about it, that court proceedings were in a different category from proceedings in Parliament or other types of meetings which would have to be held remotely because of the pandemic, such as briefings by the police: The Queen on the application of Sarah Finch v Surrey County Council [2021] EWHC 170 (QB) Lady Justice Andrews, Warby J

But on 17 November 2020, South East Today broadcast in two news bulletins a special report which included a short clip from a 2-day judicial review hearing in the Planning Court before a High Court Judge.

The BBC having previously admitted it was in breach of the statutory prohibitions on making and transmitting unauthorised recordings of court proceedings, was today fined £28,000 for contempt of court.

Applying a discount for immediate acceptance of liability and a genuine and fulsome apology, the court observed that in the ordinary way a fine in the order of £40,000-£45,000 would have been merited.

The BBC was the national public service broadcaster, it had a reputation for the highest standards, not just nationally but all over the world.  The Court was entitled to expect it to adhere to those high standards.

This was not a minor oversight by an inexperienced individual within a large organisation, but a catalogue of serious errors by a number of people that should have been, but were not, picked up by any of the internal systems and safeguards that were put in place to regulate what was broadcast.

The BBC South East Office in Tunbridge Wells contained a small team of in-house technical staff known as “the Hub” which had specialist recording equipment and provided technical support to journalists.

It beggared belief that a team of very experienced BBC journalists, all but one of whom did not need to hear the judge’s warning at the start of the proceedings because they were well aware of the prohibition on recording court hearings, should have given no thought to the propriety of getting the Hub to record the morning’s proceedings that were being recorded in the Royal Courts of Justice and viewed through live links by those who were unable to be physically present.

The recording was a deliberate and pre-planned act, even though there was no intention on the part of those responsible to act unlawfully.

This was not a case of deliberate disobedience to a court order which would have put the case at the top end of the range, but it did not fall much below it.

The court was satisfied that the reporter had no intention of broadcasting extracts from legal arguments in the JR proceedings.

What she did by using the clip as an “established shot” was thoughtless.  There was no intention on her part (or on anyone else’s) to interfere with the due administration of justice.

The editor was entitled to rely on the news editor to carry out the vetting process properly and to make sure the nature and content of any reports to be broadcast in the evening news bulletins were appropriate.

It was a matter of some concern that even someone of his vast experience and seniority failed to pick up the nature of the “scene-setting” clip or ask where it had come from in the post transmission debrief at which each of the reports was individually considered.

Had he done so, the repeat broadcast might not have happened.

The producer appeared to have accepted without question that a decision had been made by the reporter and news editor to record the proceedings, and that enabling this to happen was just another task on her list.

She did not stop to consider whether this should be done, but even if she had thought about it, she would not have been concerned or raised a query because she was unaware of the prohibition on recording or broadcasting such proceedings.

Her lack of knowledge of something so fundamental pointed to serious deficiencies in the information and training provided to BBC journalists.

In assessing the fine, the court bore in mind that the BBC would have to bear its own costs.  It had already been ordered to pay the costs of the  Defendant’s attendance at the directions hearing to assist the Court, an order which it did not resist.

Nonetheless, if the BBC were seen to be treated too leniently, it would send out the wrong message to those with a more cavalier attitude towards restrictions on reporting, recording and broadcasting court proceedings.